The Petitioner, a civil engineer, 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. § 1153(b)(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof 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 ofChrista's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
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.
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish 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) 1 may, as matter of discretion , 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.
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).
The Petitioner has two U.S. master's degrees in business administration and in engineering management. He therefore qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. Thus, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence, we have reviewed and considered each one.
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the individualproposestoundertake. Theendeavor'smeritmaybedemonstratedinarangeofareassuch as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 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." See id. 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 determined in Dhanasar 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. 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.
The Petitioner proposes to continue working with his current employer "to develop his skills as an engineer and gain valuable experience to start his own Civil Engineering Consulting Firm" to provide services to the public and private institutions in the United States, as well as to generate "top-tier and technical jobs for U.S. citizens." While this statement may establish the substantial merit portion of the first Dhanasar prong, the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he has previously provided sufficient evidence to show the national importance of his proposed endeavor, including articles and reports regarding the ongoing housing shortage in the United States, his personal statement, letters of recommendations, and an expert opinion letter. We reviewed his statement and the letters of recommendation from his professional acquaintances. The authors of the letters praise the Petitioner's abilities as a civil engineer, and the personal attributes that make him an asset to the workplace. While the recommendation letters evidence the high regard the Petitioner's professional acquaintances have for the Petitioner and his work, none of the letters offers persuasive detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond the employer he serves and the home buyers. As such, the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar. Furthermore, we note that the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue under the first prong is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of his proposed work.
The Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor is nationally important due to the national housing shortage in the United States and relies on submitted reports and articles about this issue. We acknowledge these circumstances and understand how they place the Petitioner's work in high demand. We further acknowledge the Petitioner's arguments ofcontributing to alleviating the housing p. 3 demands in Florida by constructing sustainable, high-quality, and affordable homes through his employer. However, although the Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor extends beyond Florida, he has not provided sufficient evidence to establish how the implications of his proposed endeavor rise to the level ofnational importance. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, as opposed to his employer, the record does not show that 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. Accordingly, 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. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose.
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the 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).
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.