The Petitioner, a sustainability specialist, 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 record did not establish 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 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act.
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. 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 their proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but he did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance as required to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. The Director specifically concluded the record did not establish the Petitioiner's proposed endeavor would have broad enough impact sufficient to rise to the level of national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner argues he is providing a detailed breakdown of his plans such that USCIS should conclude his work helping companies become more sustainable will be of national importance. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the first prong ofthe Dhanasar framework and will dismiss the appeal accordingly. 2
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor in the field of sustainability met the national importance element ofthe first prong ofthe Dhanasar framework. The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the goal of the proposed endeavor, "to work for the government and implement policy changes to make the state of Florida and the United States more sustainable," will be achieved through employment with a Florida government entity between 2026 and 2030. He indicates, through his "strategic plan", that his path to employment with the Florida government agency will first involve employment with two private companies, networking, and continued education. He indicates he intends to first pursue with two specific entities in Florida to "establish himself as a Sustainability Specialist in Florida ... [ using the two jobs to] build a employment
sustainable business practices, and nurturing growth in renewable energy and waste management industries."
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. We focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. While the Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor serving as a sustainability specialist is of national importance because it will address climate change and contribute to both national and global environmental stability, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. This is particularly true where, as in the Petitioner's case, we are unable to determine the exact nature of the proposed endeavor, which includes both pursuing a university degree and seeking future employment with multiple entities. Although he has outlined the steps of his proposed endeavor in his strategic plan, the actual specifics of that endeavor are not clear. Ultimately, it is not apparent what he intends to do at any level of his plan, nor is it explained what the proposed endeavor itself is, other than a plan to ultimately seek employment after developing the necessary skills and knowledge. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.No broader implications shown The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 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 what the Petitioner's proposed work entails and how that endeavor offers broader implications in his field of sustainability or enhancements to U.S. societal welfare that rise to the level of national importance. Further, the Petitioner has not presented evidence ofany potential benefits to the regional or national economies resulting from his undertaking that would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. General assertions of economic impact are not sufficient to establish the actual potential economic impact of the proposed endeavor.
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the reasons for dismissal are dispositive ofthe Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 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 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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.