remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Data Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22646258 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 31, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference 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 EB-2 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 that the Petitioner established 
eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an advance degree professional, but determined that he had 
not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in 
the national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N 
Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and 
remand the matter for further review of the record and issuance of a new decision. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203 (b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The sole issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 4 With 
respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that he meets each eligibility 
requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 376. In other words, a petitioner must show that what he claims is "more likely than not" or 
"probably" true. USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Additionally, to determine whether a petitioner has 
met his burden under the preponderance standard, USCIS considers not only the quantity, but also the 
quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of 
E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
On the Form 1-140, the Petitioner initally indicated that he intended to work as a I data 
scientist" with the following job description: "modeling data to predict, demand revenue and market 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 T&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD07). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Director made the determination about the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification within a request for 
evidence (RFE) issued prior to the denial of the petition. 
2 
elasticity to evaluate the effect of strategy on company profit. Building and maintaining optimization 
models to increase the profit." The Petitioner's initial filing included his Form ETA-750B, Statement of 
Qualifications of Alien, identifying his U.S. employer as "thel !corporation" [H-] and his 
occupation as a I I data scientist." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a statement discussing 
his employment history and plans for work in the United States, as follows in pertinent part: 
I received my Ph.D in industrial engineering from [L-] University, where my main 
research focus was centered on optimization, and a combination of machine learning 
techniques and operational research to solve business and practical problems. Due to 
my extensive experience with mathematical optimization, heuristic and meta-heuristic 
techniques, simulations, machine learning techniques and statistical modeling tools, 
[H-] hired me to fill the role of data scientist on the I I Data Science Team. 
My proposed endeavor is to continue developing and applying exact methods and 
heuristic techniques to solve optimization problems that all for the improvement of 
public services while reducing the cost of government services and minimizing the 
opportunity for hazards in transportation .... 
I want to briefly illustrate the national importance of my proposed endeavor and how I 
am actively conducting research in these areas to benefit the United States by briefly 
introducing my research projects: 
Applying optimization model and techniques in real world problem[s]. 5 Mathematical 
optimization is being used by leading companies and organizations resulting in tens or 
even hundreds of millions savin and revenue which is related to [my] project 
__________________________ [ which was 
discussed] in my initial filing .... Another sensible example is the optimization in 
preventative maintenance, which I worked on extensively in my project! I I I [ which was discussed] in the initial 
filing .... where I performed research and employed statistical models and machine 
learning to identify and predict I I failure and deformity based on inspection 
data. 
Future Research Plans: I am currently conducting research on anomaly detection 
models, which aid in the prediction of customer behavior, which has great importance 
in the tourism industries .... In another project, I am planning to collaborate with the 
5 The Petitioner provided evidence in support of the petition, including copies of his recent research publications in these 
specific areas and articles generally discussing the application of his chosen research focus in matters of national security, 
and industries involving tourism, medical care, manufacturing, and telecommunications activities, among other things. 
3 
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at [L-] University on dredge,  
material stabilization research. The dumping of I [DM] in the 
environment impacts thel I communities by either directly burying organisms at 
the ground, or indirectly by suspending and relocating the I (usually 
described as smothering) in the adjacent areas, which has been banned by the EPA 
since 1992. Recycling the DM and stabilizing for beneficial purposes seems to be an 
interesting alternative to disposal .... My [paper on this topic] has been submitted to 
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering for review [see the submission email in 
attachment 9]. 
Overall, I plan to continue my research in optimization, statistical modeling, and 
machine learning to find answer[s] to real world problems. The application of my 
knowledge in these areas stands to benefit subjects such as public safety 
environmental issues I revenue optimization I I 
I 
and the prediction of customer behavior I I I. I eagerly want to continue my research not only [to] publish papers but to 
help humanity and improve the qualify of life for those living in the United States. 
1. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The first prong of Dhanasar focuses on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
has substantial merit, but he has not demonstrated its national importance. In his appeal brief, the 
Petitioner contends that he has demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under 
the preponderance of evidence standard and that the Director's decision was in error, in part, because 
"despite clearly [listing] the evidence submitted .... the [Director] failed to evaluate - or even mention 
- any of this evidence in the consideration of the national importance of [the Petitioner's] proposed 
endeavor." 
The Petitioner further contends "[i]n addition to the evidence submitted with the [p ]etition, we 
highlighted several exhibits included with the RFE response [ see RFE response, pp 5-7] relevant to 
this consideration." Collectively considering the evidence submitted prior to the Director's decision, 
we agree with the Petitioner that his evidence was not given due consideration therein. An officer 
must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow the Petitioner a fair 
opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review . 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 l&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a 
decision must fully explain the reasons for denial to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to 
challenge the determination on appeal). While the Director listed the evidence submitted in support 
of the petition in his denial, the decision does not adequately address the documentation in the record. 
The Director should analyze the Petitioner's evidence to determine if his proposed endeavor has 
significant national or global implications with respect to optimization and operations research, 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive economic effects. If the 
Director concludes that the Petitioner's evidence does not meet the national importance requirement 
of Dhanasar's first prong, his decision should discuss the insufficiencies in the evidence and 
adequately explain the reasons for ineligibility . 
4 
2. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
To determine whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under 
Dhanasar's second prong, USCIS considers factors, including, but not limited to: the individual's 
education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related efforts; a model or plan for future 
activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential 
customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Dhanasar at 890. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner is not well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor 
under Dhanasar 's second prong. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that "[aa ]bsent from the 
[ d]ecision' s rationale is a discussion regarding of any of the relevant factors outlined in Dhanasar that 
are pertinent to the second prong analysis." We agree with the Petitioner that the Director's decision 
did not adequately discuss the evidence provided, nor did he sufficiently explain the basis for his adverse 
determination under Dhanasar 's second prong. 
3. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
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. While the 
Director's decision identifies some of the factors to consider when determining whether a petitioner 
qualifies under Dhanasar 's third prong and indicates that the Petitioner had not established eligibility 
under this prong, the Director did not adequately discuss the evidence and sufficiently explain the basis 
for this determination. If the Director determines that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet 
this prong, his decision should address all of the Petitioner's arguments and evidence, and explain the 
relative decisional weight given to each balancing factor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further review and entry of a new 
decision. On remand, the Director should review all evidence submitted to date (including the brief 
and the documentation submitted on appeal) and analyze the Petitioner's contentions and evidence to 
determine if he meets all three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar framework. The Director may request 
any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new decision. As such, we express no opinion 
regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
5