Legal analyst and entrepreneur

The Petitioner, a legal analyst and entrepreneur, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver ofthe job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so.

The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, she 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 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 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. 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. 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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration p. 2 Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category ifthe petitioner demonstrates that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the noncitizen 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 ofa job offer and thus ofa labor certification. The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the noncitizen 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. The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether the noncitizen 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, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also key considerations.

The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen's qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen 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 noncitizen's contributions; and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Each ofthe factors considered must, taken together, indicate 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.

Analysis

The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a legal analyst and entrepreneur through her company, ____________ The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 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, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.

In the decision denying the pet1t10n, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and that she is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Director, however, concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated her proposed endeavor's national importance, and that, on balance, that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirement of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification

On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erroneously applied the relevant law. The Petitioner further argues that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof and instead imposed a stricter standard. The Petitioner maintains that she submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed the entirety of the record and have considered the Petitioner's eligibility for the national waiver.

The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as a legal analyst and entrepreneur. The Petitioner states that she will offer legal consultancy services in various legal fields including labor law, environmental law, and tax. 2 The record includes a resume, business plan, expert opinion letter, and recommendation letters, as well as industry reports and articles related to the legal field. The opinion letter's author states the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has significant potential to boost revenue and profit for businesses, create direct and indirect jobs, positively impact the economy through job creation and taxes, and promote cross-cultural exchange. The author also asserts that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national and global implications within the field of international business and law and impacts a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives. The author, nonetheless, has not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to the level of national imp011ance.

To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. While the Petitioner claims her proposed endeavor is of national importance, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its clientele to impact the legal consulting field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.No broader implications shown 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, the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in her field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance.Job creation or economic claims unsupported

The Petitioner claims that her proposed endeavor will make a "substantial economic impact on the country's economy." The Petitioner, through her business plan, claims that her company will hire 3 7 direct employees by year five as well as gamer total revenue of $3,456,337.50. The Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how 2 We want to note that the Petitioner has not submitted documentation of an active law license in the United States, despite stating that she will offer consultancy services in various legal fields.Plan or projections not corroborated Although this issue is not relevant here because we are dismissing the Petitioner's appeal on other grounds, we want to advise the Petitioner in case of a refiling of the NIW petition. p. 4 these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized. The Petitioner must support her 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 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. Id. at 890.

The Petitioner contends that her company's commitment to "jobcreation and economic growth" aligns with government initiatives focused on "boosting employment and strengthening the economy." The Petitioner further argues that several government initiatives and priorities in the legal and business consulting field align with the proposed endeavor's goals and objectives. Although we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the submitted evidence, the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have broader implications beyond benefitting the Petitioner's clients and companies she elects to work with. Moreover, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. 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 has not sufficiently explained how she will positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance.

It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). She has not done so.

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 Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude that she has not established that 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.