The Petitioner, a consultant engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree, 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. § l 153(b)(2).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish that a 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 pursuant to 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 I&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. If a 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) of the 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, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. Id.
Analysis
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional but that he did not establish his eligibility under the Dhanasar analytical framework. Specifically, although SCOPS found substantial merit in the proposed endeavor, they concluded the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance, that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the United States.2 For the reasons discussed below, we conclude the Petitioner has not overcome SCOPS's determination that he has not established his endeavor's national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong and, therefore, is not eligible for a national interest waiver.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal.
The Petitioner states he has over 28 years of experience in civil engineering, large-scale infrastructure, and home construction. His past positions include roles as a project director and project manager. The Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor is to work as a consultant engineer "specializing in development projects to design affordable and resilient housing solutions to mitigate homelessness, particularly in regions impacted by natural disasters, focusing his efforts on states such as California, New York, Florida, Washington, and Texas." He plans to accomplish his endeavor through his company! I
In concluding the Petitioner did not meet the national importance requirement of Dhanasar 's first prong, SCOPS found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor stands to have an impact beyond the organization and clients he would serve or that his proposed work would otherwise have broader implications for the housing industry or initiatives, economy, or nation. SCOPS also noted that the Petitioner did not offer sufficient evidence that his endeavor would be in an economically depressed area, that he would employ a significant population ofworkers in that area, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that SCOPS erred in their decision and did not properly consider the evidence. He also asserts that SCOPS did not properly evaluate his proposed endeavor and, "failed to apply the factors mandated by the USCIS Policy Manual," did not consider "critical aspects" of the endeavor, and provided rationale that directly contradicted the record.
Beyond these generalized assertions though, the Petitioner has not specifically explained how SCOPS erred with regard to these issues. He asserts that the record "clearly establishes" the national importance of his endeavor and lists various categories of evidence reportedly demonstrating how his endeavor has national implications. But, he does not further explain, for instance, how the "federal data on the national housing shortage" or "economic reports documenting the urgency of increasing housing supply" establish that his proposed endeavor, in particular, would have broader impacts rising to the level ofnational importance.Relied on a labor shortage Moreover, as SCOPS noted, we emphasize that a petitioner's work in an important industry, even one that is the subject of national priorities, is not sufficient, in and of itself: to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889 (stating that the first prong's focus is on "the specific 2 The Petitioner's appellate brief incorrectly states that SCOPS concluded the Petitioner met Dhanasar 's second prong. p. 3 endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake"). The Petitioner must still demonstrate his proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact in that area of national importance.
In addition, although he broadly asserts that SCOPS focused only on the current size of his business, the lack of national contracts, and the initial scope of the endeavor, rather than assessing the national impact of the housing field and the endeavor itself, he provides no further detail expounding on these claims. Aside from asserting that "[t]hese [aspects] are not criteria under Dhanasar" and that the "standard [that SCOPS used] evaluates the nature of the issue addressed, not the scale of the existing business," he offers no clear, meaningful argument as to how SCOPS was incorrect in their analysis of these issues. As we stated in Dhanasar, "[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. SCOPS's assessment of the scope of the endeavor, therefore, was appropriate.
The Petitioner also does not specifically identify any documents he claims SCOPS did not consider or explain how such evidence may show the claimed national importance of his proposed endeavor. He does not otherwise address SCOPS' specific findings pertaining to the national importance element of Dhanasar 's first prong. He also does not specifically explain how SCOPS erred in their determination, or otherwise meaningfully apprise us of the basis of his appeal that may overcome SCOPS' determination that the record did not show his proposed endeavor has national importance.