remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Artificial Intelligence

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 04, 2025 In Re: 36837010 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a research scientist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner was eligible for the requested national interest waiver. The matter is now 
before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification 
as an advanced degree professional based on her attainment of a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) in 
robotics from We agree. Therefore, the remaining issue on appeal is 
whether the Petitioner has established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 
framework. 
In applying the Dhanasar framework, the Director determined that the Petitioner established the 
substantial merit of her proposed endeavor and that she was well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, but nonetheless concluded she was not eligible for the requested national interest waiver 
because she did not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has national importance, or that, on 
balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirement and thus a labor 
certification. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's determination that the record establishes the 
substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and demonstrates that she is well-positioned to 
advance her proposed endeavor. However, for the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that the 
decision does not sufficiently analyze the record under the first and third prongs of the framework set 
forth in Matter ofDhanasar, and thus a remand of this matter is appropriate. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit 
may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
The Petitioner is currently employed as a research scientist with In her 
initial filing, she stated that she intends to "continue her research on developing [ artificial intelligence 
(AI)] algorithms, including deep reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms, to solve real-world 
sequential decision-making problems." She intends to pursue her proposed endeavor by continuing 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
in this employment, 2 and will focus on "research to build better language models using reinforcement 
learning," and improve "the capability of AI virtual assistants ( chatbots) in terms of dealing with 
multiple objectives, multi-step reasoning, and aligning with human preferences through advances in 
reinforcement learning algorithms." The Petitioner also identified two specific projects she intends to 
pursue, including enhancing the factuality of large language models using reinforcement learning, and 
improving off-line data efficiency for reinforcement learning. She also asserted that she intends to 
continue to publish original research in peer-reviewed journals and conferences related to her findings, 
and provided a letter from her current employer stating that, as a research scientist, she would be 
responsible for disseminating her findings through publications and participation in conferences. 
As stated, the Director concluded that the Petitioner demonstrated the substantial merit of her 
endeavor, but did not establish its national importance. Specifically, the Director determined that she 
did not demonstrate that the economic implications of her employer's operations could be attributed 
to her work as a research scientist, nor did the Petitioner show that her work would lead to broader 
implications to her field, as the benefits of her research would be localized to her employer. However, 
in making this determination, the Director appeared to disregard the evidence in the record from both 
the Petitioner and her employer explaining their intention to distribute the Petitioner's research to the 
broader field as well as evidence indicating that her employer regularly disseminates their internal 
research findings. 
Accordingly, we agree with the Petitioner that it appears the Director did not consider the totality of 
the evidence in the record. For example, although the Director's decision lists the evidence in the 
record, including the Petitioner's updated personal statement and employment letter submitted in 
response to the request for evidence (RFE), the decision does not acknowledge the additional evidence 
accompanying the Petitioner's personal statement, including printouts from I !website showing 
its publication and distribution of AI-related research. Instead, the decision primarily relies on the 
Director's evaluation of the Petitioner's personal statement and her employment letter. On remand, 
the Director should analyze the entire record to determine whether it sufficiently demonstrates that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance, including the initially submitted 
documentation, the evidence provided in response to the Director's RFE, and the arguments presented 
in the Petitioner's appeal brief. While the Director may conclude that the statements from the 
Petitioner and her employer are not sufficient on their own to credibly establish that the Petitioner's 
work will be disseminated to others in her field, or otherwise result in broader implications, the 
Director should consider these statements along with the other evidence in the record in their totality 
to determine if the Petitioner has shown her endeavor will result in broader implications to her field. 
The Director should also examine the evidence in the record to determine the potential prospective 
impact of the proposed endeavor, and whether, for example, the record demonstrates that the endeavor, 
even if pursued in part through the Petitioner's private employment, will involve the presentation and 
dissemination of research resulting in broader implications to the Petitioner's field. Or whether the 
endeavor will result in a potential prospective impact that is commensurate with national importance. 
If the Director concludes that the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
2 The Petitioner distinguishes her proposed endeavor from her current employment, and because she is applying for a 
waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for her to have a job offer from a specific U.S. employer. However, 
the Director should consider information about her current position to illustrate the capacity in which she intends to work 
to dete1mine whether her proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar framework. 
3 
endeavor, the decision should discuss the insufficiencies in the evidence and adequately explain the 
reasons for ineligibility. 
B. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial 
The third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890-91. In performing this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: 
whether, in light of the nature of the individual's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be 
impractical either for them to secure a job offer or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even 
assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from 
their contributions; and whether the national interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to 
warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Id. In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken 
together, establish that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements 
of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. Id. at 891. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that in determining that she did not demonstrate her eligibility under 
the third prong, the Director relied on the erroneous conclusion that the benefits of her work would be 
limited to her employer. We agree. In concluding that the Petitioner did not establish her eligibility 
under the third prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Director primarily relies on their determination 
that the benefits of the Petitioner's work would be limited to her employer. And, while the Director 
discussed the availability of a labor certification to the Petitioner, the Director did not discuss the 
evidence in the record, or otherwise explain how they weighed the evidence in balancing the relevant 
considerations discussed in Dhanasar. An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa 
petition in order to allow a petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to afford us an 
opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 
20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a 
motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's decision based on this deficiency. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to determine if the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver and to enter a new decision. On remand, the Director should 
review the entire record, including the Petitioner's appeal, and determine whether she has established 
eligibility for each of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. The Director may request any 
additional evidence considered pertinent to the determination prior to issuing a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4