The Petitioner is a tattoo artist who seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member ofthe 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. § l 153(b )(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center determined that despite qualifying for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 1 the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. Specifically, applying the three-prong analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that his endeavor has national irnportance2 and that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 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 because the Petitioner did not establish that his endeavor satisfies the national importance element, which is part of the first prong requirement of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve any appellate arguments regarding the third prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, which contemplates whether on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 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 1 The Director determined that the Petitioner met at least three of the six categories of evidence and therefore qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as an individual of exceptional ability. However, the Director did not conduct a final merits determination to explain the basis for the favorable determination, and the record as currently constituted lacks sufficient evidence showing that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. But because our conclusions regarding the national interest waiver are sufficient to determine the outcome of this appeal, no further discussion of the EB-2 issue is necessary at this time.
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).
After a petitioner first demonstrates qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, they must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) ofthe Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion3, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows:
- 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.
The Director reviewed and analyzed the Petitioner's claims under the three prongs of Dhanasar, acknowledging the Petitioner's submission of a business plan containing five-year staffing and growth projections. However, the Director pointed out that the Petitioner did not specify where he intends to employee the 10-person staff that is projected for his business's fifth year of operation and determined that the Petitioner did not establish his endeavor's significant potential to employ U.S. workers or create other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area.Job creation or economic claims unsupported The Director farther determined that the Petitioner's endeavor will likely benefit only the clients that will use his services and thus it does not stand to impact the regional or national population at a level that is consistent with having national importance.
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director imposed "a stricter standard of proof . . . and erroneously applied the law to the detriment ofthe Appellant." We disagree. Except where a different standard is specified by law, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing immigration benefit requests. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375 (AAO 2010); see also Matter ofMartinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter ofSao Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151, 152 (BIA 1965). Accordingly, "preponderance ofthe evidence" is the standard ofproof governing national interest waiver pet1t10ns. See generally l USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While the Petitioner asserts that he has provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver, he does not farther explain or identify a specific instance in which the Director applied a standard of proof other than the preponderance of evidence in denying the petition.
The Petitioner also contends that his endeavor "is a vital aspect to U.S. Healthy [sic] and Art industry" and "contributes to a revenue-enhanced business ecosystem, and an enriched, productivity-centered economy." However, the Petitioner does not offer evidence to support these claims of the endeavor's broad impact on the U.S. "business ecosystem" and economy.No broader implications shown Likewise, the Petitioner offers no evidence to demonstrate that his endeavor will positively impact "the health and well-being of Americans" on such a scale that the endeavor should be deemed to have national importance. And while the Petitioner asks that we consider "the importance of the field, industry or profession" of the endeavor, this factor does not necessarily impart national importance to the specific endeavor.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's In 3 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). p. 3 determining an endeavor's national importance, the relevant question is not the importance ofthe field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," taking into consideration the proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
In sum, the Petitioner does not provide any new evidence or arguments that overcome the Director's determination regarding the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Upon review of the entire record, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision on the issue of the national importance element of the first prong. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Courts of Appeals in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case.")
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.