remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Data Science / Artificial Intelligence

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 04, 2024 In Re: 30648766 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a data scientist/researcher, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and/or an 
individual of exceptional ability, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate her eligibility for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen 
that the Director also denied. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 l&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. 
I. LAW 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
te1m "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar , 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 (USCIS) 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 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ADV AN CED DEGREE 
In order to qualify for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner must first show that she qualifies for 
the EB-2 classification under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, either as an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability. In denying the petition, the Director did not 
determine whether the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional 
or as an individual of exceptional ability. However, the Director did conclude in the request for 
evidence (RFE) notice that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on her 
holding a master's degree in computational science. On remand, the Director should make a final 
determination in any subsequent decision as to whether the Petitioner has met their burden with respect 
to her EB-2 eligibility. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
The Petitioner stated that she is a doctoral candidate in information science at the 
I I The Petitioner indicated that her proposed endeavor involved researching the creation of 
ethical frameworks outlining the principles and guidelines for the development of artificial intelligence 
(AI) in different fields. The Petitioner explained that her work would center on "fairness, transparency, 
privacy, and algorithm bias" and assist AI developers "to anticipate, identify and address ethical issues 
regarding AI technologies." 
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. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In the denial decision, the Director concluded the Petitioner established that her proposed endeavor 
had substantial merit. However, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. The Director pointed to "industry articles and reports" 
provided by the Petitioner and concluded that these did not demonstrate the proposed endeavor had 
significant potential to "offer substantial economic impacts for the nation" or benefit the regional or 
national economy. In sum, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that her 
"individual contribution to [AI] would affect the U.S. economy more broadly consistent with national 
importance." In making this determination, the Director did not specifically articulate the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, nor did they discuss in detail any of the evidence provided by the Petitioner in 
support of the petition or in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). For instance, the 
Petitioner provided a personal statement, citations to law and executive orders addressing AI, and 
several letters from professors and researchers she worked with from her university discussing her 
proposed endeavor. 
2 
The Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen stating that her proposed endeavor would contribute to 
the "public good and societal welfare by promoting the design of ethical and trustworthy [ AI] 
systems." The Petitioner indicated she had previously submitted citations to legislation, executive 
orders, and Office of Budget and Management (0MB) guidance addressing the importance of AI. The 
Petitioner further referenced White House communications and strategic plans and other legislation 
also addressing the critical nature AI to the nation. The Petitioner asserted that these various laws, 
executive orders and communications, and other government guidance supported that her proposed 
endeavor was of national importance. In addition, the Petitioner submitted an expert letter from an 
assistant professor at I Idiscussing the potential prospective impact of her 
proposed endeavor. 
In denying the motion, the Director stated that the submitted evidence did not meet the requirements of a 
motion to reopen. The Director concluded that the newly submitted facts, including "a White House 
briefing and additional articles," did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor "has significant 
potential to offer substantial positive economic effects for the nation." The Director's decision again did 
not specifically address the support letters submitted by professors and researchers from the Petitioner's 
university, her personal statements, law and government sources she cited, nor the additional expert 
opinion provided on motion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy manual 
indicating that it discusses endeavors related to research, pure science, and the furtherance of human 
knowledge and that these may qualify a proposed endeavor as having national importance, whether or 
not the endeavor is likely to translate to economic benefits for the United States. 2 The Petitioner asserts 
that her proposed endeavor in AI ethics is related to research, science, and the furtherance of human 
knowledge as discussed in the USCIS policy manual. Further, the Petitioner emphasizes guidance related 
to STEM fields and national importance included in the USCIS policy manual encouraging the 
consideration of proposed endeavors aimed at advancing STEM technologies and research when 
assessing national importance. 3 
The Petitioner contends that the Director did not apply the proper standard by requiring that she 
demonstrate substantial positive economic effects and improperly denied the petition, and later motion, 
by not considering the potential impact of her proposed endeavor on critical and emerging STEM 
technologies. In addition, the Petitioner points to the letters submitted from her professors and other 
experts that discuss the national importance of her endeavor and asserts that these are consistent with the 
evidence considered in Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Upon review, we will remand this matter for the entry of a new decision consistent with the following 
analysis. On remand, the Director will consider the evidence submitted by the Petitioner not sufficiently 
analyzed in both denial decisions, including support letters submitted by professors, researchers, and 
experts discussing her proposed endeavor, her personal statements, and the law and government sources 
she cited. Further, we agree that the Director improperly evaluated only whether the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor would have substantial positive economic benefits on the U.S. economy and did not sufficiently 
consider whether it could have national importance based on its potential prospective impact on science, 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l). 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2). 
3 
technology, culture, health, education, or critical and emerging STEM technologies. On remand, the 
Director will consider all this evidence and these other bases for eligibility with respect to national 
importance. 
B. Second and third prongs ofDhanasar 
In the denial decision, the Director concluded that the Petitioner demonstrated that she met the second 
prong of Dhanasar, namely, that she was well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. However, 
the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that it would be beneficial to waive the 
requirement of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, consistent with the third prong of 
Dhanasar.4 
The third prong requires the 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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. 
On remand, the Director will also consider the third prong of Dhanasar, as necessary, based on their 
determination with respect to the first prong requirement of national importance, taking into account its 
impact on science, technology, culture, health, education, or critical and emerging STEM 
technologies 5 and whether it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a 
job offer and thus of a labor certification. The Director may request any additional evidence 
considered pertinent to the new determinations and any other issues. As such, we express no opinion 
regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
5 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2). 
4