The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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 Petitioner had not qualified for classification as an individual of exceptional ability, and that he had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus ofthe labor certification, would be in the national interest On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that he is eligible as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as for a national interest waiver.
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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. 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.
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework:
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. - p. 2 (A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare ofthe United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i)Nationalinterestwaiver.... [T]heAttorneyGeneralmay,whentheAttorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer in the United States.
Furthermore, 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 o f Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national 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 foreignnationalproposestoundertake. Theendeavor'smeritmaybedemonstratedinarangeofareas 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.
Thesecondprongshiftsthefocusfromtheproposedendeavortotheforeignnational. Todetermine whether he or she 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; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the UnitedStatestowaivetherequirementsofajobofferandthusofalaborcertification. Inperforming this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign Inannouncingthisnewframework,wevacatedourpriorprecedentdecision,MatterofNew YorkStateDepartmentof Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT).
See also Poursina v. USCJS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a nationalinterestwaiverto be discretionaiy in nature). p. 3 national 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 foreign national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States The Director did not make a determination regarding the Petitioner's eligiblity as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The record reflects that the Petitioner possesses the foreign equivalent of a baccalaureate degree and at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. Accordingly,thePetitionerqualifiesasamemberoftheprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree. See8 The remaining issue to be determined 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. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar,26I&NDec.at889. ThePetitionerinitiallyprovidedastatementindicatingthathe"intend[s] to continue using [his] expertise and knowledge in the field of Mechanical Industrial Engineering" and his "career plan in the United States is to work with U.S. multinational companies [as] a Mechanical Engineer." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner offered an updated statement indicating that he "intend[s] to prospect job opportunities in different companies that are experiencing a high demand of engineering talent." In addition, he claimed: to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor ce1iification.
Analysis
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) and (3)(i)(A)-(B).
B. National Interest Waiver
My overall goal is to work as a Mechanical Engineer in the U.S. automotive industly, and I will also serve numerous field areas, including manufacturing, quality, maintenance, and safety. I will standardize innovative strategies, which will produce new levels of productivity by 1) launching cost reduction strategies, 2) enhancing customer satisfaction, and3)improvingproductiontargets. Thiswillleadtocompany-widegrowth,anditwill As he meets the classification as a memberoftheprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree, a determination regarding the Petitioner's classification as an individual of exceptional ability is moot.
ThePetitioneralsoassertedthathe"intend[s]topursuejobopportunitiesinthefollowingcompanies: GeneralMotors, Ford Motor Company, Toyota, BMW Group, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, among others." As the Petitioner is applying for awaiverofthejobofferrequirement,itisnotnecessaryforhimtohaveajobofferfromaspecificemployer. However, we will consider information about his current and prospective positions to illustrate the capacity in which he intends to SeeDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, forelaboration onthesethreeprongs. also heighten my served entity's malket relevance, and overall finance gains.
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that his "proposed endeavor is to work as a Mechanical Engineer in the Automotive Industiy, and helping U.S. auto manufacturing companies in pursuing, adapting, and implementing engineering solutions and advancements required to excel in today's competitive global marketplace." The Director determined that the Petitioner demonstrated the substantial merit of his 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."Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his providing mechanical engineering services to auto manufacturing companies rather than the national importance of the mechanical engineering or the U.S. automotive field or industry. 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 s t a t e d t h a t " [ a ] n e n d e a v o r t h a t h a s s i g n i f i c a n t p o t e n t i a l to e m p l o y U . S. w o r k e r s o r h a s o t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l positive economic effects,particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890.
In his appeal brief, the Petitioner argues that "[t]hroughout his career, [he] has acquired many techniques to solve critical problems in an organized and systematic manner," "has worked as a mechanical and quality engineer in the automotive industry," and his "knowledge and expertise are unique, and urgently needed in the U.S." The Petitioner's experience and abilities in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong.
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Although the Petitioner claims that "[h]e will offer significant improvements to his served companies' production flows,andcreate innovative manufacturing,quality,maintenance,andoverallengineeringstandards" and "will support U.S. auto manufacturers in developing a competitive edge in both national and international markets," he has not offered sufficient, specific information and evidence to demonstrate that the work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework .Job creation or economic claims unsupported The Petitioner claims that he provided "Industry Reports and Articles" as evidence of the economic impact ofhis proposed endeavor. TherecordreflectsthatinresponsetotheDirector'sRFE,thePetitionersubmittedarticlesrelatingtobusiness designs and logos, such as "What Role Does Design Play In Business Success?"; "The Importance ofHaving the Rigμt Logo"; "Beyond Design Thinking"; "Marketing Matters Now More than Ever"; "Here's Why Good Design Isn't Negotiable for Your Business"; and "The Business Value ofDesign." The Petitioner did not explain how the evidence relates to his proposed endeavor, let alone shows its national importance. proposed endeavor, and the record supports that conclusion. with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown the national importance ofhis proposed endeavor. prospective impact ofhis proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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 The record includes documentationregardingtheengineeringjob market in the United States.
For the reasons discussed below, we agree
In Dhanasar, p. 5 not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential or futuristic employers, to impact the U.S. auto industry or U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not established that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects forournation. WhilehereferencesU.S.autosalesandemploymentstatistics,thePetitionerdoesnot demonstrate how his specified proposed endeavor would somehow influence those figures . Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's mechanical engineering work would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 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. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose.
Conclusion
As thePetitionerhasnotmettherequisitefirstprongoftheDhanasaranalyticalframewoik,weconclude that he has not demonstrated that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matterofdiscretion. Theappealwillbedismissedfortheabovestatedreasons,witheachconsidered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.