The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional, 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. § 1153(b)(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not established 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof 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.
On appeal, the Petitioner presents a brief but does not add new evidence or arguments to directly confront the reasoning the Director provided in the decision. In the request for evidence (RFE) and the decision, the Director addressed many of the Petitioner's assertions regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor and discussed multiple pieces of evidence individually. For example, the Director discussed the Petitioner's statements, as well as letters ofrecommendation and business plan, and the submitted articles and reports. The Director further identified numerous deficiencies in the evidence and explained specifically why the evidence did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. In addition, the appeal brief does not claim any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. The Petitioner did not provide any new evidence or arguments which overcome the Director's determination.
We adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the first Dhanasar prong. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). The Director thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and analyzed the Petitioner's national importance claims under the p. 2 first prong of Dhanasar, including his submission of a business plan, testimonial letters, industry reports and articles and the claimed proposed endeavor.
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that his proposed endeavor's main goal is to "educate and provide new up and coming pilots with their certifications and licenses" which will have a positive impact in the economy by bringing new pilots into the aviation field in the United States, and safely transport people. However, the record does not adequately explain how these potential employment opportunities will be realized. Nor did the record sufficiently show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's services and improvements stand to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the record does not show that 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 Id. at 890. The petition will remain denied.
Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 1 Further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 2 ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.