The Petitioner, a computer systems engineer/entrepreneur, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or of exceptional ability, 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 employment based second preference (EB-2) 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. See 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a 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 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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 petition 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. 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.
Whilst 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 USCIS may as a matter of discretion grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a petitioner p. 2 classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate 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 of a job offer and thus of a 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 petition 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 of the 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
Whilst the Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and was well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor, the Director concluded that the proposed endeavor was not of national importance such that on balance a waiver of the requirement of a job offer and labor certification would be beneficial to the United States. 1 1 We harbor considerable doubts regarding both the Petitioner's categorical eligibility for classification under the EB-2 category and how well the Petitioner is positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. In the first instance, the Petitioner has submitted an educational evaluation based on a combination of education and experience which does not reflect that they have earned the single source equivalent of a U.S. master's degree in a field related to their endeavor.Degree not shown to be a U.S. advanced degree equivalent And the Petitioner's burden to meet Dhanasar ·s second prong is not met with a demonstration of relevant education and a demonstration of skills from work experience standing alone. But since the resolution of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar is dispositive of this appeal, we need not consider or discuss their eligibility under the second and third Dhanasar prongs or their categorical eligibility for classification under the EB-2 category and will reserve these issues. 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). p. 3 Our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office that adjudicated the immigrant petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. So based on a de novo review we will adopt and affirm the Director's decision that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that their proposed endeavor had potential prospective impact rising to a level ofnational importance. See Matter o_fBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); see also Prado-Gonzalez v. INS, 75 F.3d 631, 632 (11th Cir. 1996) (joining "every court of appeals that has considered this issue" holding that an appellate body may affirm the lower court's decision for the reasons set forth therein); Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); GomezMejia v. INS, 56 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir. 1995).
The Director gave individualized consideration to the evidence the Petitioner submitted with their initial petition and their RFE response. 2 We agree with the Director's well-reasoned decision that the Petitioner does not qualify for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have provided information technology consulting services to small businesses. The Petitioner identified the beneficial impact to the national interest of their proposed endeavor was, generally, job creation, tax revenue, and efficient business operations. But the record did not support that these benefits rose to a level of national importance either through their broader implications influencing matters in the national interest or potential positive economic effects, such as influencing greater employment levels in historically high unemployment areas.No broader implications shown
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that they do not merit a favorable exercise of discretion to waive the requirement of a job offer, and therefore a labor certification.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.