The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 ofthe Nebraska 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. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that he 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. Upon de nova 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. 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. -(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 p. 2 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) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,2 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 beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, 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.
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 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 United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing 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 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) See also Poursina v. USC1S, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter ofNew York State Department of Tramportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). p. 3 considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
Analysis
degree.
The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the substantial merit and the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical Regarding his claim of eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong, the Petitioner indicates that he is a "counterterrorism security expert . . . currently working as the I I ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ . , " and asserts that he is "prepared to employ his expertise to strengthen the homeland security of the United States."
Towards that end, he describes his prospective endeavor, in relevant part:
[The Petitioner] views the U.S. as the country where he can most effectively and productively employ his expertise in counterterrorism; security management; military communications; modem signals communications; crisis communication, response, and support; conflict management, mediation, and negotiation; reconciliation processes; and staff supervision.
To accomplish [U.S.] national security goal[s], he pledges to support the following priority actions: disrupt terror plots, take direction, eliminate terrorist safe havens, sever sources of strength, share responsibility, and combat radicalization and recruitment in communities.
The Petitioner asserts that "his experience and expertise qualify him to support and provide consulting for government aid or security agencies, such as USAID and the U.S. Department of State's Bureau ofDiplomatic Security and Bureau ofCounterterrorism, or for the Department ofHomeland Security." The Petitioner further adds that "[tlhere is a good chance that [the Petitioner] will continue his employment withl f."
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), asking for a detailed description of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, and noted that if the Petitioner planned on pursuing multiple endeavors - that he should provide information and evidence regarding his plans for each undertaking and explain how his time would be divided between them. In response, the Petitioner provided additional documentation, such as letters of reference, articles discussing national security issues, and See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs.
government reports that address national security concerns. While he reiterates some of the general areas in which he might work, noting again for instance "there is a good chance that [the Petitioner] will continue his employment withI l"he did not provide a detailed explanation and documentation to identify and describe the specific endeavor(s) that he would pursue. In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not sufficiently identified his proposed endeavor, and therefore he did not satisfy Dhanasar's first prong. We agree.
The Petitioner presents a high-level listing of general areas in which he might assist in efforts to deter terrorism and promote the national security of the United States, (e.g., security management; military communications; modem signals communications; and crisis communication). For example, he indicates that he might support and provide consulting for government aid or security agencies, such as USAID and the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security and Bureau of Counterterrorism, or for the Department ofHomeland Security. However, generally describing broad areas of experience and knowledge and simply stating the Petitioner might support or consult with federal agencies is insufficient to establish his proposed endeavor, and that it will have substantial merit and national im ortance. He also states in his RFE response, and on appeal, that he is already employed byL__ _ _ _ __,...__,_............LJ..>.i.l..L...L.u.u.L.l.L.1.........1.J.LL"""""'~ headquartered i~ Iand as such he "is already employed with a.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. employer with a substantial presence in the United States." However, he does not discuss in sufficient detail how his employment withl I .___ _ _.I demonstrates both substantial merit and national importance.
The Petitioner also alternatively asserts that he might focus on "communication matters that will benefit FEMA in its mission." He notes in his RFE response that "emergency management falls under the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security, which states that disaster response and building resilience are among its top priorities." Nonetheless, without more details, the Petitioner has not established the specific nature of his proposed endeavor sufficient for us to determine that his work in the United States will have substantial merit and national importance. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. The Petitioner has not done so here.
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an opinion letter from Dr. P-M-, professor ofpolitical science a~.__ _ __. University, who concludes that the Petitioner "satisfies the [Dhanasar] first prong, because his proposed employment is in a field (security) that is both of substantial intrinsic merit and national in scope." The professor appears to conflate the eligibility requirements in the Dhanasar first prong, in part, with the framework put forth in our precedent decision, Matter o fNew York State Dep 't ofTransp. ("NYSDOT'), 78 22 I&N Dec. 215. As discussed, in announcing the Dhanasar framework we vacated NYSDOT. Here, the Petitioner's reliance on the professor's conclusion that a petitioner may meet the first Dhanasar prong based on the substantial intrinsic merit and national scope of a particular field is misplaced.
The NYSDOT framework looked first to see if a petitioner has shown that the area of employment is of "substantial intrinsic merit." Id. at 217. Next, a petitioner had to establish that any proposed benefit from the individual's endeavors will be "national in scope." Id. Finally, the petitioner must demonstrate that the national interest would be adversely affected if a labor certification were required for the foreign national. Id.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is a component o f the U.S. Depaitment o f Homeland Secmity. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 884.
I
The professor also discusses the expertise the Petitioner gained through various military and security-related assignments while he was employed first by thel Iand later by the IHowever, the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his employment relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has substantial merit and national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. Though the professor opines that the Petitioner's "work combating terrorists is invaluable, his education impressive, and his promise for future accomplishment undeniable," he does not adequately identify, For these reasons, we conclude that the professor's letter is not probative towards establishing the Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter ofCaron Int'l, 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. For the sake of brevity, we will not address other deficiencies within the professor's analyses.
Further, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" ofhis work. Though requested by the Director in his RFE, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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. We conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently impact his field or U.S. security interests more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects forournation.Job creation or economic claims unsupported WithoutsufficientinformationorevidenceregardinganyprojectedU.S.economicimpact attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's consulting projects would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the specific proposed endeavor to determine whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national importance and (2) the foreign national is well positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information regarding his proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he meets either the fust or second prong of the Dhanasar precedent. Accordingly, Similarly, the Petitioner has provided reference letters from current and former colleagues who outline his work accomplishments and put forth general statements that assert his services would be beneficial to the United States. While the letter writers hold the Petitioner in high regard, the submitted letters do not provide sufficient information regarding the specific endeavor(s) that the Petitioner will engage in or explain the national importance of his proposed work under the Dhanasar's first prong. p. 6 he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that 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.