The Petitioner seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 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 ofthe 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. § 1 l 53(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 the Petitioner had not established that a discretionary 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 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 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 Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be p. 2 thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified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 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 Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a chief executive officer (CEO) and an entrepreneur. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to establish a discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest.
A. EB-2 Classification
The Petitioner states, "the [Director] determined that the [Petitioner] does qualify for the requested classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree." The Director's decision, discretionary in nature). p. 3 however, did not offer an analysis on the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional nor as an individual of exceptional ability.
The resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, under the Dhanasar analytical framework are dispositive of this appeal. For that reason, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested EB-2 category. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal in removal proceedings where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief).
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Director determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor is of national importance, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification In particular, the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor has broader implications, has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, and that it would broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment.No broader implications shown Furthermore, the Director decided that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm whether his proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erroneously applied the relevant law. The Petitioner further argues that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof and instead imposed a stricter standard. The Petitioner also highlights the evidence submitted in support of the petition and in response to the Director's notice of intent to deny and claims that the Director failed to give "due regard" to the submitted evidence. 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 ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework. While we do not discuss every piece ofevidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one.
The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to operate his business, _____ that provides construction and electrical equipment wholesaling services in Massachusetts. He claims his company will offer services for household electrical installations, repairs, house automation, and internet of things appliance integration.
As previously noted, the first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 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 Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor is of national importance as he will contribute to maintaining the competitiveness of the United States by introducing competitive services, fostering national development, and generating income for the U.S. economy. The Petitioner submits a resume, p. 4 business plan, and recommendation letters to emphasize his education and extensive experience in business development and management. In addition, the record includes industry reports and articles that highlight the importance of the business development professionals.
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 the Petitioner claims his endeavor is nationally important, 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. Here, the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed to work as a CEO and entrepreneur offers broader implications in his field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance.
Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence he submits on appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients and companies he elects to work with 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. Specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific endeavor stands to provide substantial economic benefits in the United States. While the Petitioner claims that by year five his company will offer 13 direct and 22 indirect jobs and gamer total revenue of $5,000,000, the record does not support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those assertions.
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on his education and professional experience and various industry reports to establish why his CEO/entrepreneur endeavor is of national importance. He highlights his 28 years of professional experience and knowledge in business administration, strategic planning, and business development to underscore the significance of his proposed endeavor. Although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner's claimed extensive experiences are material to Dhanasar 's second prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91.
Moreover, the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have broader implications beyond benefitting the Petitioner's customers. 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. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how he will positively p. 5 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. Without evidence projecting U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, it is insufficient to assert that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the proposed endeavor would rise to the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The Petitioner argues that his proposed endeavor is an area of national importance because of the "ripple effects it generates upon significant national, social, and governmental matters, namely education." The Petitioner must nonetheless demonstrate that his specific proposed endeavor-which consists of his work as a CEO and entrepreneur in the business field-holds national importance, not that the national initiatives and interests, industries, or fields do. He has not done so. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or that it will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 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 also 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.