The Petitioner, a chief executive officer (CEO) and an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 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 qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he 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 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 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 1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). p. 2 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 that 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 CEO and an entrepreneur. The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver ofthe requirement ofa job offer, and thus ofa labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer is warranted.
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. The Director determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erroneously denied the petition. The Petitioner further contends that the Director failed to "objectively evaluate" the evidence using the proper standard and instead imposed a novel standard. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one.
The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to operate his company, _____ which provides construction-related services. Through this endeavor, the Petitioner seeks to offer construction planning, engineering, supply assessment, logistics, and building assembly outsourcing services, with the company headquartered in Florida.
As previously noted, the first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that 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.
In the decision denying the petition, the Director acknowledged and discussed the Petitioner's submission of evidentiary documents including a business plan, resume, industry reports and articles. The Director's decision also considered the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as outlined in the business plan. The Director nonetheless determined that the submitted evidence was insufficient to demonstrate the proposed endeavor's broader implications and significant potential to employ U.S. workers.No broader implications shown Furthermore, the Director found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm whether his proposed endeavor would broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, would lead to the employment of a significant population of workers in an economically depressed area, or that the Petitioner would pursue his endeavor in economically depressed area despite claiming that the company will operate in a HUBzone.
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. The Petitioner highlights the evidence he submitted in support of his petition and in response to the Director's request for evidence including resume, business plan, professional experience, letters of recommendation, and industry reports and articles to underscore the sufficiency of the submitted evidence and maintains that he submitted evidence to demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance.
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 that he will create jobs and generate tax revenue through his company and that by year five his company will offer 25 full-time jobs and gamer 10.6 million dollars total revenue, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized. The Petitioner also argues that his proposed endeavor will "substantially enhance the U.S. construction industry and the national economy." The Petitioner, however, 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. Here, the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work as an entrepreneur and CEO of his construction company offers broader implications in his field, p. 4 enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance.
Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States. For example, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claimed intention to establish his proposed endeavor within a Small Business Administration (SBA) designated HUBZone. Since the Petitioner has not adequately established what parameters the SBA considers when it establishes HUBZones, we cannot evaluate whether these SBA-identified underutilized business zones are akin to the types of economically depressed areas within which creating employment could be a potential positive economic effect.2 More importantly, while the Petitioner asserts that his company will offer 25 direct and 58 indirect jobs by year five, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his undertaking will have implications beyond his employees and customers. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not indicate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
The Petitioner highlights his extensive professional experience in the construction service industry, asserting that his track record demonstrates how his proposed endeavor will bring significant innovations and improvements to the United States. The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself, not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must establish that his specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. Moreover, although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner's claimed extensive experiences are material to Dhanasar 's second prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91.
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes the importance of the construction industry and claims that his endeavor impacts the national economy. The Petitioner also points out the shortage of engineering professionals. As previously mentioned, 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. Although the Petitioner states his endeavor is of national importance, he has not, for example, sufficiently explained how he will positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move 2 The HUBZone program's goal is to promote business growth in underutilized business zones by awarding 3% of federal contract dollars to companies that are HUBZone-certified. Joining the HUBZone program makes a business eligible to compete for certain federal contracts in the "set-aside" category. There are several required qualifications to participate in the program, but the most dispositive requirement for purposes of our analysis is that the business seeking to participate in the HUBZone program must be at least 51 % owned by U.S. citizens, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative, an Alaska Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. While it is unknown and the record is silent as to whether any federal programs exist in the "set-aside" category for endeavors like the one the Petitioner proposes, it appears as though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be wholly owned and controlled by the Petitioner and that the Petitioner is not a U.S. citizen, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative, an Alaska Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. We therefore question whether the Petitioner would even be eligible to participate in the HUBZone program. p. 5 the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. It is also important to note that the shortage of engineering professionals does not render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.Relied on a labor shortage In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence he submitted in support of his petition, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend its benefits beyond his customers and the companies he elects to work with to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative 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 his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010).
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 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. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and also hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his 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 he has not established that he 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.