The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification, as well as a national interest waiver ofthe job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. 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 a waiver ofthe required job offer and thus of the labor certification, would not 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 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. 53 7, 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. Next, a petitioner must then demonstrate 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 that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows:
- The proposed endeavor bas both substantial merit and national importance;
- The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Analysis
A. EB-2 Classification
In order to qualify for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner must first show that she qualifies for the EB-2 classification under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, either as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. We observe that in denying the petition, the Director did not provide a determination addressing whether the Petitioner submitted evidence sufficient to show that she qualifies for this classification.
As discussed below, the Petitioner has not presented adequate reasons or evidence on appeal to overcome the Director's determination that she is ineligible for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Therefore, we need not remand the matter to the Director to determine her eligibility for the EB-2 classification. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive ofthe Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve this 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 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). B. National Interest Waiver
The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Director concluded in her denial that the Petitioner's prospective work has substantial merit and is of national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong, but she also determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons discussed below, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner has established her eligibility under Dhanasar 's first prong. Based on our de novo review of the record, we conclude the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the substantial merit and the national importance ofher proposed endeavor under the first prong and that she is well-positioned to advance it under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one.
The Petitioner indicated in part 6 of the petition that she intends to be employed as a judicial law clerk "assisting judges in court or by conducting research or preparing legal documents." She quoted these job duties verbatim from the general job description for judicial law clerks on O*NET, an employment information database sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor. See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/23-1012.00. As such, the passage above describes the general duties of a judicial law clerk but gives no specific details about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague
She also generally asserts in her professional plan that her goal is to "act incisively to be a renowned and valued professional as a reference for many people. Organize government offices and give the American people great satisfaction with the excellent service she is capable of performing." She observes: Local governments will continue to need court, municipal, and license clerks to do tasks such as prepare case dockets, draft agendas, and issue licenses and permits. Eligibility p. 3 interviewers will continue to determine whether government assistance, such as unemployment or Social Security benefits is appropriate for people applying for it."
While her statements suggest that she might seek public sector administrative employment at the municipal, state or federal level in the United States, her professional plan offers little insight into the specific aspects of the endeavor that she intends to pursue.
We acknowledge the various documents the Petitioner provided regarding the importance of the legal industry and the law clerk occupation in the United States. However, when determining whether a proposed endeavor would have substantial merit or national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-890. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual ("The term 'endeavor' is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation.") Simply being employed in an occupation does not constitute an endeavor for the purposes of these proceedings. Id.
Similarly, the Petitioner also submitted a letter outlining an entirely different goal that she intends to pursue which involves embarking on "[ a ]n international career in a company where she can be relevant and add value in projects to make a difference in the American territory." Towards that end she will: [P]rovide her services to U.S. and Brazilian corporations, willing to advance and exchange business between those countries. Specifically, she is capable ofhelping U.S.
On appeal, the Petitioner shares that she is "using her skills and knowledge gained from her professional experience [abroad] as a legal clerk to work on projects of national importance while contributing to international initiatives." The Petitioner's statements on appeal reaffirm her intention to continue working in the field of law, noting that she is currently working in a capacity where she assists U.S. companies' efforts in obtaining building permits. She points to a "complex construction case" that she recently was involved in which she assisted a company with obtaining a building permit "where the client opted for a larger boat platform than the [ c ]ounty allowed." She notes that she worked hard on this permit application, supporting the company's arguments with relevant information and data, in order to obtain a waiver from the local city hall, and that she demonstrated "knowledge of the legislation and a great argumentative capacity in solving problems." But she does not further explain how this project - which appears to involve obtaining a building permit from a local municipality - has national implications that rise to the level contemplated by the Dhanasar framework.
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. Here, the record suggests that the Petitioner's endeavor may entail working as a legal clerk assisting companies in their efforts to obtain local construction permits, and as such, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently impact U.S. interests or the legal and construction industries more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
While she also indicates that she might be employed as an international trade consultant, she has not identified the means through which she will pursue helping U.S. companies to establish businesses in Brazil, and helping Brazilian companies expand their businesses in the United States. As a result, she has not offered sufficient evidence to established how the impact of her work in this role will be of national importance. Collectively considering the evidence, we conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
Without more information about her specific proposed endeavor and how she will apply her knowledge and experience in the United States, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established her proposed endeavor sufficient for us to detennine that her work in the United States will have substantial merit and national importance. In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the specific proposed endeavor to determine whether it has both substantial merit and national importance under the Dhanasar's first prong. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. The Petitioner has not done so here.
Additionally, in order to determine whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must also rely on the specific proposed endeavor to determine whether they are well positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar 's second prong. Dhanasar at 889-90. Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient and consistent information regarding her proposed endeavor, we also cannot conclude that she meets the second prong. For the sake of brevity, we will not discuss other deficiencies in the record with regard to the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar 's second prong. p. 5 Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Further analysis of her eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 516.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.