The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver ofthe job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).
The Director oftheNebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree, but 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 she is eligible for a national interest waiver.
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361;MatterofChawathe, 25 I&NDec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). Upondenovareview,wewilldismisstheappeal.
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. - p. 2 (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 ofthe 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)Nationalinterestwaiver.... [T]heAttorneyGeneralmay,whentheAttorney 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.
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 of discretion , 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 beneficialtotheUnitedStates to waivetherequirementsofajobofferandthusofalaborcertification.
The first prong, substantial merit and national impmiance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreignnationalproposestoundertake. Theendeavor'smeritmaybedemonstratedinarangeofareas 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.
Thesecondprongshiftsthefocusfromtheproposedendeavortotheforeignnational. Todetermine whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar 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.
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the UnitedStatestowaivetherequirementsofajobofferandthusofalaborcertification. Inperforming 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 Inannouncingthisnewframework,wevacatedourpriorprecedentdecision,MatterofNew YorkStateDepartmentof Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01).
SeealsoPoursinav. USCIS,936F.3d868,2019WL4051593(9thCir.2019)(findingUSCIS'decisiontograntordeny a na tionalinterest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter Dhanasarstates that after a petitioner has established p. 3 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. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs.
Analysis
As described in the Petitioner's May 2021 "Professional Plan":
I intend to continue my activities as a [n]urse, utilizing all of the knowledge I acquired in programs and courses, along with my professional experience, which have considerably contributed toward the successful development of my work in an efficient manner, guaranteeing the best results. I also intend to take new courses according to the demand in the healthcare field, which is constantly evolving, as well as taking the courses necessary to validate my credentials in the U.S.
The Director determined that, although the Petitioner had demonstrated the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor, she had not established its national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar analysis.
As discussed by the Director and as we explained in our precedent decision, In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. An undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. But we do not evaluate prospective impact solely in geographic terms. Instead, we look for broader implications. Even ventures and undertakings that have as their focus one geographic area of the United States may properly be considered to have national importance... An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance.
Id. at 889-90.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that her endeavor "has palpable broader implications, as its results are widely disseminated to other professionals in the field," but does not provide documentation, such as research publications, to supporther claims. As evidence, the Petitioner references "the probative letters previouslysubmitted ... whichtestifyto the dissemination ofmyworkthroughthe [h]ealthcareindustry." While the letters demonstrate the high regard the authors have for the Petitioner and her work, they do not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be of national importance. Even if the Petitioner replicates her nursing success in the United States through her proposed endeavor, her p. 4 success would be limited to the patients and employers she serves. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level ofhaving national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Similarly, the record in this matter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her immediate employer(s), coworkers, and patients such that it would impact U.S. healthcare or the field of nursing more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.No broader implications shown
In addition, the Petitioner relies on her experience and prior career accomplishments to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. However, the Petitioner's expertise and record of successin previouspositionsare considerationsunderDhanasar'ssecondprong,which "shiftsthe focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance of her proposed work. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (BIA 2010) and Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77 (BIA 1989), The Petitioner also incorrectly asserts that the Director misapplied theDhanasar analytical framework by "looking for national importance solely in geographical terms" and requiring a job offer. A review of the Director's decision, however, does not support this claim. There is no indication that the Director evaluated the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor solely in geographic terms or concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that she meets this element because she lacked a specific offer of employment.
Without more, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner meets the national importance portion of the firstprongoftheDhanasaranalysis. Forexample,thePetitionerhasnotdemonstratedthatthespecific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offerssubstantialpositiveeconomiceffectsforournation. Withoutevidenceregardinganyprojected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work, the record does not show that any potential benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reachthelevelof"substantialpositiveeconomic effects"contemplated byDhanasar.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Id. at890. Nor has she documented that the particular work she proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in nursing or otherwise has broader implications for the field or the U.S. healthcare industry.
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavorasrequired,thePetitionerhasnotdemonstratedeligibilityforanationalinterestwaiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding the remaining issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework. Accordingly, we conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiverasamatterofdiscretion. Theappealwillbedismissedfortheabovestatedreasons.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.