The Petitioner, a maintenance engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 the proposed endeavor is of national importance or that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and labor certification. 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 l&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.
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years ofprogressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. p. 2 Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) 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.
Analysts
The Petitioner claimed eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual of advanced degree and exceptional ability. However, because we conclude that he is not eligible for, and does not merit as a matter of discretion, a national interest waiver, and this determination is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the issue. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ( 1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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). A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id.
The appeal brief states that the Petitioner's business, "will provide tailored, eco-friendly, and energy-efficient maintenance solutions." The evidence provided does not demonstrate that this specific endeavor is of national importance.
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 T&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. To evaluate whether a petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of their work. 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. 26 T&N Dec. at 893.
Here, the Petitioner has not adequately described how his maintenance consulting company will have a broader impact on the field beyond his individual clients.No broader implications shown The Petitioner argues on appeal that his proposed work is nationally important because the company will "transform the maintenance landscape by advocating for practices that enhance organizational security, reliability, compliance, and efficiency and significantly reduce environmental impact." Yet the brief and the record does not explain how the business would achieve these aims or make a nationally important impact on the field beyond their clients. Contentions require support to underpin them, as assertions themselves do not constitute evidence. See, e.g. , Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight"). The record does not sufficiently demonstrate national importance either. 2 The Petitioner provided his resume, personal statement, business plan, educational records, various training certificates, workplace awards, letters of recommendation, and engineering association documents.
The Petitioner presented several letters of recommendation from former co-workers and his pastor. The majority of the letters of recommendation state that the Petitioner is a skilled engineer or detail specific past job performance, but they do not stipulate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will contribute to the maintenance engineering field on a nationally important level. We observe that a few of the letters do comment on the proposed endeavor and its importance. However, these statements do not provide explanations for how the Petitioner would have a national impact on his field. For example, the letter from !generally notes that the Petitioner would set new standards in the industry. Nevertheless, beyond this broad remark, the writer neglected to specifically illustrate how the proposed endeavor would achieve this or generally how it would have a national impact beyond its clients. The remaining evidence consists of the Petitioner's educational documents, workplace awards, training certificates, and engineer association cards. The Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments and experiences, not the specific endeavor's potential impact in the maintenance engineering industry. Generally, this type of evidence is more appropriate for the second prong when determining if the petitioner is wellpositioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
Moreover, 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 An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may have national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, however, the business plan does not adequately support its projections ofjob and revenue creation.Plan or projections not corroborated
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that the Petitioner's company will reach a total of 23 employees in year five, with payroll expenses growing from $214,000 in year one to $890,285 in year five. He also projected generating $178,241 in net profit in year one, increasing to $232,723 in year five . Nonetheless, the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the business 2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. p. 4 plan's financial projections. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably true, where the determination oftruth is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See id. Here, the lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value of the business plan.
Even if we assumed all the projections in the business plan were accurate, the record lacks evidence demonstrating that its impact would be nationally important. The Petitioner's appeal brief contends that the "economic impacts of [the Petitioner's] venture are profound." Yet the Petitioner did not provide documentation to support these statements that the company will result in substantial economic growth on the level of national importance. The record does not illustrate how creating 23 jobs and generating the net profit as projected in the business plan, would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national importance. The Petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has therefore not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Accordingly, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance.
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond his clients to affect the region or nation more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893.Proposed endeavor too vague He has not shown that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong ofthe Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified 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 Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 (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 of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7 (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.