The Petitioner, an international business manager and consultant in the supply chain industry, seeks second preference immigrant classification (EB-2) as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 immigrant 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 Director did not make a finding on whether the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest p. 2 waiver pet1t10ns. 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:
- The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance;
- The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the United States.
Id. at 889.
Analysis
The Petitioner claimed eligibility for both types ofEB-2 classification, as a member of the professions with an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director's decision focuses entirely on the issue of the national interest waiver and includes no determination on whether the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification. Because we nevertheless conclude that the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies secondpreference eligibility criteria. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); Matter of L-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).
The Petitioner initially stated that his proposed endeavor is to "serve in development, consulting, and training pertaining to international Business Administration/management applied to international trade and investment focused on supply chain management and logistics." However, the Petitioner's initial filing did not provide additional details regarding his future endeavor and largely discussed the importance of the supply chain management and international trade in general.
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner introduced a business plan for his company, __________ stating that the company's mission is to "facilitate the expansion and success of companies in international markets through high-quality strategic and operational consulting services" and to provide "innovative and customized solutions that drive growth, efficiency and sustainable competitiveness." The Petitioner provided additional articles on global supply chain challenges, trends and outlook on supply chain management, and the White House's 2022 report on securing critical supply chains.
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner demonstrated substantial merit of his endeavor based on various industry reports and articles on the importance of supply chain management and logistics industry; however, the Petitioner did not establish national importance of his endeavor, as contemplated by Dhanasar. We agree with the Director's statement that the Petitioner "has not offered 1 See Flores v. Garland. 72 F.4th 85. 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). p. 3 sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance."
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact and focus on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We stated that "[a]n 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." 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.
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that "the evidence unequivocally supports the conclusion that [the Petitioner] satisfies the Dhanasar three prong test by a preponderance of evidence" and "the Director erred in concluding otherwise." Specifically, the Petitioner contends that the Director "did not analyze the Petitioner's evidence" such as the expert opinion letter, the business plan, and industry related articles and reports, and did not provide "in-depth consideration of [the] evidence" as it used "generic language in a templated request for evidence (RFE) and final decision."Support letters generic or unsupported
While the Director did not specifically address each piece of evidence submitted, it is a wellestablished principle that "a presumption ofregularity attaches to the actions ofGovernment agencies" absent clear evidence to the contrary. See US. Postal Serv. v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1, 10 (2001) (citing United States v. Chem. Found., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926)). Here, the Director overall describes the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and cites to specific information and contents from the record before reaching its conclusion. Ifthe Director provided a reasoned consideration to the petition and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence presented. See Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir.1992); aff'dMorales v. INS, 208 F.3d 323, 328 (1st Cir. 2000); see also Pakasi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2009); Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009). Therefore, we find that the Director considered the evidence presented but determined that they are not probative in supporting the endeavor's national importance.
The Petitioner claims that the expert opinion letter "represents a critical endorsement ofthe Petitioner's work by an expert in the field" and affirms "the significance of the endeavor and its direct relevance to the national interest." However, this expert letter is written by an evaluator from INNOV A Educational Services, a private credential evaluation firm that analyzes foreign academic degree equivalence "due to [their] extensive knowledge of the world's educational systems." The evaluator does not provide his professional or academic credentials to show that he is a recognized expert in the field or industry of the Petitioner's endeavor, such as business administration, supply chain management, international trade, or logistics industry. Instead, the evaluator generally describes the three prongs of Dhanasar and summarizes the information already provided by the Petitioner's resume, business plan, and recommendation letters, such as his educational and employment background, the mission and vision ofhis company, and statistics and outlook on relevant occupations, before concluding that the Petitioner is eligible for the national interest waiver. The evaluator does not provide any other persuasive details regarding specific impact of the Petitioner's endeavor or his methodology in supply chain management or international trade.
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter ofCaron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, the advisory opinion is of little probative value as the evaluator does not provide his credentials to demonstrate his expertise in the field of the Petitioner's endeavor or meaningfully address the details of the endeavor and why it would have national importance.
The Petitioner further claims that the business plan on record "serves as a comprehensive outline demonstrating the Petitioner's well-structured strategy and the viability of the proposed endeavor" as well as "the likelihood of business success" and "the potential for job creation within the United States." Although the Petitioner's business plan outlines the company's mission, organizational structure, marketing strategies, pricing, and weekly action plans, it does not sufficiently demonstrate the company's financial or staffing projections for us to determine how the Petitioner's business will have "substantial positive economic effects" to a region or the nation as a whole.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The Petitioner also has not offered other corroborating evidence of the company's economic impact aside from claims made in the business plan or his statements.
dispositive of the appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs of Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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 of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.