The Petitioner, a chief executive officer, seeks secondpreference 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 of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree, but 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 eligibility 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; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). Upondenovareview,wewilldismisstheappeal.
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. - p. 2 (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 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)Nationalinterestwaiver.... [T]heAttorneyGeneralmay,whentheAttorney 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 o f of discretion , 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 beneficialtotheUnitedStates to waivetherequirementsofajobofferandthusofalaborcertification.
The first prong, substantial merit and national impmiance, 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.
Thesecondprongshiftsthefocusfromtheproposedendeavortotheforeignnational. Todetermine 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 UnitedStatestowaivetherequirementsofajobofferandthusofalaborcertification. Inperforming 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 Inannouncingthisnewframework,wevacatedourpriorprecedentdecision,MatterofNew YorkStateDepartmentof Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01).
SeealsoPoursinav. USCIS,936F.3d868,2019WL4051593(9thCir.2019)(findingUSCIS'decisiontograntordeny a na tionalinterest waiver to be discretionaiyin nature).
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter Dhanasarstates that after a petitioner has established p. 3 n a t i o n a l to s e c u r e a j o b o f f er o r f o r t h e p e t i t i o n e r to o b t a i n a l a b o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n ; w h e t h e r , e v e n a s s u m i n g 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) considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member o f the professions holding an advanced degree. The Director also determined that the Petitioner had established that the proposed endeavor met the substantial merit portion of the first prong set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. The Director's decision then provided a well-reasoned explanation as to why the Petitioner does not meet the national importance portion of the first prong.
Therefore, upon consideration ofthe entire record, including the arguments made on appeal, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below.4 See Matter ofP. Singh, Attorney, 26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved by a trial judge or bearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case).
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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We further indicated that "we look for broader implications" ofthe proposedendeavor and that"[a]n undertakingmay 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 bas 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.
According to the Petitioner's business plan, his proposed endeavor is to "expand" his business from damage remediation "into Fire Protection and Sprinkler Services" and to generally "offer 1) Design and Engineering Services, 2) Installation Services, and 3) Inspections and Repairs." His "target customers" include "general contractors, architects, developers, and property owners." The Petitioner also projects a "gross margin" of $1,260,929 and "earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization" of $824,388 in year five. Finally, he indicates that there will be seven employees, in addition to the chief executive officer.
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the "economic impact ... is only one aspect that may be favorable to a petition, but is not required," and we agree. However, Dhanasar provided examples such as "endeavors related to research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge" which "may to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
Analysis
SeeDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs.
While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. p. 4 qualify, whether or not the potential accomplishments in those fields are likely to translate into economic benefits for the United States." Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the focus of his company's work is similar to any of the listed endeavors, such that he would meet the national importance portion ofthe first prong.
As discussed by the Director, the record does not establish that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation as contemplated by Dhanasar.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Although the Petitioner provided information regarding projected income and staffing levels, he has not established that they stand to provide substantial economicbenefitstoFloridaortheUnitedStates. NorhasthePetitionerestablishedthattheareawhere the company will operate is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. Further, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects." Id. at 890. For example, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the projected taxes to be paid in the next five years will substantially affect either Florida's or the United States' tax revenue or the U.S. or Florida economy more broadly ata level commensurate with national importance.
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on previously-submitted "statistics" from a variety of sources, including the National Fire Protection Association, that he contends "support[] the importance o f fire protection to U.S. persons, the economic impact of fire damage and prevention, and about small business investment in the U[nited] S[tates]." He also cites to information from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to argue that his proposed "endeavor of fire and disaster prevention and recovery is in line with national initiatives." While the information may aid in establishing the proposed endeavor's substantial merit, it does not demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's planned business. As previously stated, to determine national importance, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the industry. Id. at 889. ThePetitionerhasnotadequatelyestablishedhowhisownershipofacompany,evenonethathe claims provides services that are "in line with national initiatives," satisfies the national importance prongundertheDhanasaranalysis. ThePetitionerbearstheburdenofarticulatinghowtheysatisfy eligibility criteria. See section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361.
The Petitioner also relies on two letters described as being from "government entities who acknowledge the impacts his services have had or will have in a broader context." The letter from ICounty Commissioner) Isimply states that "based on his resume, .. . [the Petitioner] [p]ossesses a valuable skill set in this area" and "his contributions in the area of safety could be invaluable." The letter fro ml Iis complimentary of the Petitioner's "moral character" and indicates that his homeowner'sassociation will considerusingthe Petitioner's services.
Neither letter, however, establishes the national importance ofthe proposed endeavor.
We note that in Dhanasar, the Petitioner had "developed~ !model o f ~ ~ ~ - Ipropulsion engine, as well as a novelI Imethod for accurately calculating i-------,-1a_i_r_fl_o__.w." He not only provided "probative expert letters from individuals holding senior positions in academia, government, and industry that describe the importanceoj Ipropulsion research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests," but also "media articles and other evidence p. 5 documenting the interest of the House Committee on Anned Services in the development of Itechnologies and discussing the potential significance of U.S. advances in this area of research and development." Here, the Petitioner's focus on the risks of fires and natural disasters in general does not address how the specific aspects of the proposed endeavor and the performance of the planned activities would have broader implications, rising to the level of national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar.Proposed endeavor too vague SeeDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
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, we find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients and their projects to impact the industry more broadly at a level commensuratewith national importance. Nor has he shown that the particular work he proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in his industry, rather than just affecting projects involvinghiscompany,orotherwisehasbroaderimplicationsforhisfield. Forallthesereasons,the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasarframework.
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 hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding the remaining issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision ofwhich is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also 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).
Conclusion
AsthePetitionerhasnotmettherequisitefirstprongoftheDhanasaranalyticalframework,weconclude he has not established that he is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter ofdiscretion. Theappealwillbedismissedfortheabovestatedreasons,witheachconsideredasan independent and alternate basis for the decision.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.