Specific Evidentiary Considerations for STEM Degrees, Entrepreneurs, and Government Agency Letters

1. Specific Evidentiary Considerations for Persons with Advanced Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics (STEM) Fields

There are specific evidentiary considerations relating to STEM degrees and fields, although the analysis is the same regardless of endeavor, so these considerations may apply in non-STEM endeavors where the petitioner demonstrates that such considerations are applicable.[64] USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in STEM fields and the essential role of persons with advanced STEM degrees in fostering this progress, especially in focused critical and emerging technologies[65] or other STEM areas important to U.S. competitiveness[66] or national security.[67]

To identify a critical and emerging technology field, officers consider governmental, academic, and other authoritative and instructive sources, and all other evidence submitted by the petitioner. The lists of critical and emerging technology subfields published by the Executive Office of the President, by either the National Science and Technology Council or the National Security Council, are examples of authoritative lists.[68] Officers may find that a STEM area is important to competitiveness or security in a variety of circumstances, for example, when the evidence in the record demonstrates that an endeavor will help the United States to remain ahead of strategic competitors or current and potential adversaries, or relates to a field, including those that are research and development-intensive industries,[69] where appropriate activity and investment, both early and later in the development cycle, may contribute to the United States achieving or maintaining technology leadership or peer status among allies and partners.

With respect to the first prong, as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. Many proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, not only have substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, but also have sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance. On the other hand, while proposed classroom teaching activities in STEM, for example, may have substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, such activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of an impact in the field of STEM education more broadly, and therefore generally would not establish their national importance.[70]

For the second prong, as mentioned above, the person’s education and skillset are relevant to whether the person is well positioned to advance the endeavor.[71] USCIS considers an advanced degree, particularly a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), in a STEM field tied to the proposed endeavor and related to work furthering a critical and emerging technology or other STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness or national security, an especially positive factor to be considered along with other evidence for purposes of the assessment under the second prong.[72]

Persons with a Ph.D. in a STEM field, as well as certain other persons with advanced STEM degrees relating to the proposed endeavor, have scientific knowledge in a narrow STEM area since doctoral dissertations and some master’s theses concentrate on a particularized subject matter. Officers should then consider whether that specific STEM area relates to the proposed endeavor. Even when the area of concentration is in a theoretical STEM area (theoretical mathematics or physics, for example), it may further U.S. competitiveness or national security as described in the proposed endeavor.

Examples of evidence that can supplement the person’s education are listed above,[73] but a petitioner may submit any relevant evidence, including letters from interested government agencies as discussed below,[74] to show how the person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. A degree in and of itself, however, is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.

Finally, with respect to the third prong, it is the petitioner’s burden to establish that factors in favor of granting the waiver outweigh those that support the requirement of a job offer and thus a labor certification.

When evaluating the third prong and whether the United States may benefit from the person’s entry, regardless of whether other U.S. workers are available (as well as other factors relating to prong three discussed above, such as urgency), USCIS considers the following combination of facts contained in the record to be a strong positive factor:

• The person possesses an advanced STEM degree, particularly a Ph.D.;
• The person will be engaged in work furthering a critical and emerging technology or other STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness; and
• The person is well positioned to advance the proposed STEM endeavor of national importance.

The benefit is especially weighty where the endeavor has the potential to support U.S. national security or enhance U.S. economic competitiveness, or when the petition is supported by letters from interested U.S. government agencies as discussed in section 3 below.

2. The Role of Interested Government Agencies or Quasi-Governmental Entities

While not required, letters from interested government agencies or quasi-governmental entities in the United States (for example federally-funded research and development centers) can be helpful evidence and, depending on the contents of the letters, can be relevant to all three prongs. Specifically, letters from an interested government agency or quasi-governmental entity could prove favorable for purposes of the first prong if, for example, they establish that the agency or entity has expertise in the proposed endeavor and that the proposed STEM endeavor promises to advance a critical and emerging technology or is otherwise important for purposes of maintaining the United States’ technological prominence.

Detailed letters of government or quasi-governmental interest that provide relevant information about how well-positioned the person is to advance the endeavor are valuable for purposes of assessing the second prong.[75] Finally, an interested government agency or quasi-governmental entity can help explain how granting the waiver may outweigh the benefits of the job offer and labor certification requirement by explaining a particular urgency or detailing how the United States would benefit from the prospective noncitizen’s contributions, even if other U.S. workers are available.

3. Specific Evidentiary Considerations for Entrepreneurs

There may be unique aspects of evidence submitted by an entrepreneurial petitioner[76] undertaking a proposed endeavor, including through an entity based in the United States in which the petitioner typically possesses (or will possess) an ownership interest, and in which the petitioner maintains (or will maintain) an active and central role such that the petitioner's knowledge, skills, or experience would significantly advance the proposed endeavor.

When evaluating whether such petitions satisfy the three-pronged framework, officers may consider the fact that many entrepreneurs do not follow traditional career paths and there is no single way in which an entrepreneurial start-up entity must be structured.

In addition to the more generally applicable evidence described above, an entrepreneur petitioner may submit the following types of evidence to establish that the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, that the petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor, and that, on balance, it would be beneficial to waive the job offer and thus labor certification requirements.

• Evidence of Ownership and Role in the U.S.-Based Entity: The petitioner may have an ownership interest in an entity based in the United States, of which the petitioner may also be the founder or co-founder. The petitioner may also play an active and central role in the operations of the entity as evidenced by the petitioner’s appointment as an officer (or similar position of authority) of the entity or in another key role within the entity. Such evidence may have probative value in demonstrating the petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor.
• Degrees, Certifications, Licenses, Letters of Experience: This evidence may indicate that the petitioner has knowledge, skills, or experience that would significantly advance the proposed endeavor being undertaken by the entity. Education and employment history, along with other factors related to the petitioner’s background, may serve to corroborate the petitioner’s claims. Some examples include successfully leading prior start-up entities or having a combination of relevant degrees and experience to equip the petitioner to advance the proposed endeavor.
• Investments: An investment, binding commitment to invest, or other evidence demonstrating a future intent to invest in the entity by an outside investor, consistent with industry standards, may provide independent validation and support of a finding of the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor or the petitioner being well placed to advance the proposed endeavor. This investment may come from persons, such as angel investors, or established organizations, such as venture capital firms. Because different endeavors have different capital needs, USCIS also considers the amount of capital that would be appropriate to advance the endeavor in determining whether the petitioner has secured sufficient investments.
• Incubator or Accelerator Participation: Incubators are private or public entities that provide resources, support, and assistance to entrepreneurs to foster the growth and development of an idea or enterprise. Accelerators are generally private venture capital entities and focus on helping entrepreneurs and their start-ups speed the launch, growth, and scale of their businesses. Officers may consider evidence of an entrepreneur’s admission into an incubator or accelerator as an endorsement of the petitioner’s proposed plan or past track record, and the petitioner being well positioned to advance the endeavor. Petitioners may submit evidence of the past success of the incubator for officers to consider when evaluating this evidence.
• Awards or Grants: Relevant funds may come from federal, state, or local government entities with expertise in economic development, research and development, or job creation. In addition, awards or grants may be given by other entities, such as policy or research institutes. Like investment from outside investors, this evidence may provide independent validation and support for a finding of substantial merit, national importance, or both, of the proposed endeavor or the petitioner being well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
• Intellectual Property: Intellectual property, including relevant patents held by the petitioner or one of the petitioner’s current or prior start-up entities, accompanied by documentation showing why the intellectual property is significant to the field or endeavor, may serve as probative evidence of a prior record of success and potential progress toward achieving the endeavor. The petitioner should submit evidence to document how the petitioner contributed to the development of the intellectual property and how it has or may be used internally or externally.
• Published Materials about the Petitioner, the Petitioner’s U.S.-Based Entity, or Both: Relevant published materials may consist of printed or online newspaper or magazine articles or other similar published materials evidencing that the petitioner or the petitioner’s entity, with some reference to the petitioner’s role, has received significant attention or recognition by the media. Petitioners may submit evidence of the media outlet’s reputation for officers to consider when evaluating this evidence.
• Revenue Generation, Growth in Revenue, and Job Creation: Relevant growth metrics may support that the proposed endeavor, the petitioner’s start-up entity, or both, has substantial merit or that the petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Such evidence may include a showing that the entity has exhibited growth in terms of revenue generation, jobs created in the United States, or both, and the petitioner’s contribution to such growth. This evidence may also support that the proposed endeavor, the petitioner’s start-up entity, or both, have national importance when coupled with other evidence, such as the location of the current or proposed start-up entity in an economically depressed area that has benefited or will benefit from jobs created by the start-up entity.
• Letters and Other Statements from Third Parties: Letters may be from, for example, relevant government entities, outside investors, or established business associations with knowledge of:
  • The research, products, or services developed by the petitioner, the petitioner’s entity, or both; or the petitioner’s knowledge, skills, or experience that would advance the proposed endeavor.
  While entrepreneurs typically do not undergo the same type of peer review common in academia, entrepreneurs may operate in a variety of high-tech or cutting-edge industries that have their own industry or technology experts that provide various forms of peer review.[77] Additionally, the merits of the entrepreneur’s business, business plan, product, or technology may undergo various forms of review by third parties, such as prospective investors, retailers, or other industry experts. Accordingly, letters and other statements from relevant third-party reviewers, may have probative value in demonstrating the substantial merit and national importance of the endeavor and that the individual is well positioned to advance the endeavor.

Generally, many entrepreneurial endeavors are measured in terms of revenue generation, profitability, valuations, cash flow, or customer adoption. However, other metrics may be of equal importance in determining whether the petitioner has established each of the three prongs.

As noted in Matter of Dhanasar, “many innovations and entrepreneurial endeavors may ultimately fail, in whole or in part, despite an intelligent plan and competent execution.”[78] Accordingly, petitioners are not required to establish that the proposed endeavor is more likely than not to ultimately succeed based solely on the typical metrics used to measure entrepreneurial endeavors (although such showings may be considered favorably). They instead need to show that the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, that the petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and 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. Evidence establishing the petitioner’s past entrepreneurial achievements and that corroborates projections of future work in the national interest are favorable factors. Claims lacking corroborating evidence are not sufficient to meet the petitioner’s burden of proof. As in all cases, officers must consider the totality of circumstances to determine whether each of the three prongs is established by a preponderance of the evidence.