The Petitioner, a chief executive/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 although the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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. 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 noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that on 1 See 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 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 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, 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 of the 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 as a chief executive/entrepreneur in the United States. 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 ofthe 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 his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
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, that he is well positioned to advance it, 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 apply the proper standard of proof and instead imposed a novel standard.
While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed the record and have considered the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver. The Petitioner states that he aims to work as a chief executive and entrepreneur through his company, __________ The Petitioner's company is based in I I Florida and will focus on negotiating accommodations, p. 3 transfers, excursions, and offering prepackaged travel deals to clients through retail and online channels. The Petitioner further explains that his company will provide travel destinations across the U.S., organized activities, excursions to various attractions, and cruise trips. The record includes a business plan, expert opinion letter, recommendation letters, and industry reports and articles on various topics, such as business, marketing, and entrepreneurship.
The Petitioner highlights his extensive experience in travel and business management and contends that he will help the U.S. remain competitive by offering high-quality services, contributing to the country's development, and generating income for the U.S. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 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, although the Petitioner asserts that his expertise and skill set will "support U.S. businesses in developing a competitive edge in both national and international markets," the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor will bring substantial economic benefit that would rise to the level ofnational importance.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
Moreover, 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. 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 professional experience is generally material to Dhanasar's second prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance.Proposed endeavor too vague See id. at 888-91. The Petitioner, through his business plan, claims that by year five, his company will offer 6 direct jobs and generate net profit of$72,466. The Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient detail ofthe basis ofthese projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his 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 emphasizes his contributions to the tourism industry, his national and international recognitions, and the importance of the tourism sector. 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. Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his undertaking has implications beyond the companies and clients he elects to work with to impact the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance.No broader implications shown In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's p. 4 teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Similarly, the record here does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's impact will be nationally important.
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 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 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.