The Petitioner, a construction manager and civil engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 had not established that she qualified for the requested EB-2 classification and that a discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe 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 dismiss the appeal.
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 ofprogressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id. [If a doctoral degree is customarily required for the specialty, the alien must possess a U.S. doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. Id.]
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation p. 2 that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. If a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree ofexpertise and will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States. Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act.
Ifa 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) ofthe 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 (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,2 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.
Analysis
The Petitioner proposes to establish a consulting firm in California that will focus on "specializing in infrastructure and project management across sectors like transportation, healthcare, energy, and commercial real estate." The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that she qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability. The Director also found that the Petitioner failed to establish a discretionary waiver of the required job offer, thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest.
A. EB-2 Classification
With respect to the underlying EB-2 classification, the Petitioner contends that she has submitted sufficient documents to demonstrate her eligibility for the classification as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree and an individual of exceptional ability.
The resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, under the Dhanasar analytical framework are dispositive of this appeal. For that reason, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested EB-2 category. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter 1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii).
ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal in removal proceedings where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief).
B. National Interest Waiver
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the petitioner 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. In denying the petition, the Director concluded that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish the endeavor's national importance. The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not establish that she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that her evidence demonstrates the proposed endeavor's national importance. The record includes the Petitioner's curriculum vitae and academic records, a business plan, an expert opinion letter, recommendation letters, and industry reports and articles. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. The Petitioner proposes to operate her company,.___~_______., which will focus on project planning, technical consulting, and marketing to support efficient and sustainable construction projects. She explains that her company's mission is to provide project management and civil engineering services that enhance the quality and efficiency of construction projects. The Petitioner intends to start operation inl ICalifornia and expand to other cities across the United States. The Petitioner declares that her proposed endeavor holds significant national importance because of her company's goals to address crucial infrastructure, promote sustainability, and foster economic growth. As previously noted, in determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n 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 890. Here, the Petitioner asserts that by prioritizing key sectors such as transportation, energy, and healthcare, her company will contribute to critical areas of national development. While infrastructure development and sustainability are significant, the focus is whether the Petitioner's specific endeavor will have a broader national impact. The Petitioner, however, has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her endeavor meets the threshold of national importance.
The Petitioner contends that she will create jobs in "construction, project management, and engineering while also driving demand for local contractors, suppliers, and related services." She insists that the "ripple effects of these projects will boost local economies, improve pubic services, and contribute to the overall productivity of the country." The Petitioner, through her business plan, claims that by year five, p. 4 her company will offer 21 direct jobs and generate net profit of$15,697,023.48. However, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail ofthe basis ofthese projections or adequately explain how these staffing targets and revenue forecasts will be realized. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work, the record does not show that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.Job creation or economic claims unsupported See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. While I lhas the potential to create jobs within the construction sector, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her business will generate large-scale employment beyond what is typical for similar business in the industry.
The Petitioner highlights her civil engineering experience and states that her "track record of success" demonstrates her proposed endeavor's national importance. The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself: not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must establish that her specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. Moreover, although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner's professional experience is generally material to Dhanasar's second prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance.Proposed endeavor too vague See id. at 888-91.
In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, although the field in which the Petitioner seeks to operate her business is important, she has not demonstrated that her specific endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her clients and employees to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance.No broader implications shown Additionally, the Petitioner's assertion that her company will promote sustainability and improve infrastructure quality does not, by itself: establish national importance. The Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate how her company will contribute to industry-wide advancements that would have a broad, national impact on the construction sector.
The Petitioner asserts that her endeavor aligns with various government 1mtiat1ves focused on infrastructure development, sustainability, and environmental resilience. She claims that her business will offer innovative solutions that improve infrastructure quality by incorporating advanced technologies such as building information modeling and sustainable construction methods. She further argues that this innovation supports government efforts to promote green technology and sustainable development. To substantiate her claim, the Petitioner relies on industry reports and articles concerning construction, project management, and government initiatives aimed at improving infrastructure. However, while these sources highlight the significance of the Petitioner's field, they do not specifically address her proposed endeavor or demonstrate its national importance. Moreover, merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, as we explained in Dhanasar. Id. Here, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a far-reaching impact beyond her clients and projects to impact the construction management and civil engineering field at a level indicative of national importance.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.