The Petitioner, a solar energy installations manager, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. 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 of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration p. 2 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 balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements ofa job offer and thus ofa 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, 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 ofthe 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 Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of 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 Petitioner is an engineer who proposes to establish a solar panel installation and service company. He explained that as he does so, he would transmit his industry knowledge to his employees and 1 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 therefore impact the United States solar industry as a whole as that knowledge perpetuated over time and multiplied.
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) requesting, among other things, further evidence of how the proposed endeavor would be of national importance. In response, the Petitioner provided a personal statement, copy of his resume, business plan for a solar energy engineering company in Florida, and an expert opinion letter. The Director found that while the Petitioner's endeavor had substantial merit, the record didn't establish it was of national importance.
In the decision denying the petition, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor but determined that the Petitioner had not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated on balance that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirement of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates the same arguments and resubmits previously submitted documents to demonstrate his eligibility for the national interest waiver and underscore the sufficiency of the submitted evidence. For example, the Petitioner contends that his company will offer installation and maintenance of solar energy equipment, supply of equipment and supplies for solar energy, and training in the area of solar energy services to residential property owners, property management companies, and professionals. The Petitioner further professes that his company will employ six employees and will gamer net revenue of $869,200 in year one to $1,802,373.12 in year five. The Petitioner also highlights sections of the expert opinion letter from Dr. V-L-, 2 an associate professor of marketing at.______________. In particular, Dr. V-L- maintains that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance because the Petitioner's company will generate direct and indirect jobs and pay taxes which will result in substantial benefits to the U.S. economy. Dr. V-L- also refers to industry reports and national initiatives and asserts that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will broadly enhance societal welfare.
We reviewed the entirety of the record and have considered the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Further, the relevant question is not the importance of the 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 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.
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. While 2 Name withheld to protect individual's identity. p. 4 the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to own and operate a business in the field ofengineering for the installation and/or maintenance of equipment using solar energy, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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.
Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence he submitted on appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employees and his company's customers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance.
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. The Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. While the Petitioner claims that his company plans to hire six employees, generate direct and indirect jobs, and has growth potential, he has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, although the Petitioner asserts that his endeavor stands to create substantial benefits to the U.S. economy, he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where his company plans to operate in Florida will be an area that 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, tax revenue, or business activity.
We acknowledge that the solar energy installation field is important; however, that fact is insufficient to establish the national importance of the endeavor proposed here. 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. The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how he will positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance.
In the business plan, the Petitioner discusses information obtained from industry and government reports regarding the solar energy installation industry and the potential growth perspectives for solar energy installation managers. In addition, the Petitioner avows that his business will offer free solar energy related courses online over the course of five years to train and prepare 800 students for the job market. Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's experience and skill set, and his desire to train and prepare students, the Petitioner must demonstrate his proposed endeavor offers benefits which extend beyond his community to impact the solar energy industry more broadly. Moreover, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor of owning and operating a business in the field of solar energy installation rather than the importance of the national initiatives and interests, industries, or fields. He has not done so.
It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.No broader implications shown The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010).
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 Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude that he has not established that 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.