The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the 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 the Petitioner 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 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3 .
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&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, petitioners must 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. In addition, petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver ofthe job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) ofthe 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 proposed endeavor has 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
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance ofthe specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner intends to "[e]stablish a Sales & Marketing Representation Organization that will globally promote 'smaller' United States destinations beyond the 'Traditional' Top 20. This will be done by implementing a grass-roots approach in every state, region, city, and small town while using a Collaborative Destination Marketing Model to market different businesses as a single product." The Petitioner proposes to focus on drawing visitors from Spanish-speaking countries to "increase International Travel at a regional and local level" through development of an "International Traveler database" and the use of "Integrated Marketing Campaigns," sales, public relations, and market research.
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the national importance, of the proposed endeavor. 2Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's
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 specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
The Petitioner contends that international tourism to the United States had a large impact on the U.S. economy prior to the Covid-19 pandemic and that "[t]he United States needs to restore international travel for the economy and American society to recover folly." On appeal, he emphasizes the positive economic and social effects of tourism and points to documentary evidence he previously submitted. However, the matter here is not whether tourism is nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of establishing a sales and marketing organization to promote tourism to destinations in the United States beyond the top 20 most visited cities. The Petitioner initially submitted articles and data relating to the importance of tourism and its impact on the U.S. economy in general, the numbers of international visitors to the United States, the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on tourism, general information about rural tourism, and the goals of the National Travel and Tourism Office to increase tourism. However, this information relates to tourism in general and does not provide relevant information supporting the Petitioner's claim that his specific proposed endeavor is nationally important.Proposed endeavor too vague In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner provided additional information about tourism in general and its importance to local economies, articles on cultural heritage tourism, a document about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's program to support development of the "recreation economy" in rural communities, and a National Travel and Tourism Strategy paper briefly mentioning goals of promoting tourism to underserved communities. However, this evidence is still general in nature and does not specifically address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of promoting tourism in cities beyond 2 The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director also denied his petition based on findings that he is not well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and that he had not shown that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus, of a labor ce1tification.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification However, the Director did not reach those issues because the Petitioner has not shown the national importance of his proposed endeavor. p. 3 the top 20 most visited. 3 Furthermore, other than stating generally that he plans to bring tourism to lesser-known areas, the Petitioner did not specify any towns, cities, or regions in which he intends to focus his efforts.
In Dhanasar, we 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. Although the Petitioner submitted some general information about rural tourism, he did not indicate in his proposed endeavor an intention to focus on rural tourism or in an economically depressed area.
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his business would largely influence the field and rise to the level of national importance.Past record does not show influence or success In Dhanasar, we determined 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. The record does not show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his prospective clients or employees to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
Finally, while he provided a business plan for his proposed company, the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence corroborating the assertions and figures.Plan or projections not corroborated Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Although the business plan forecasts $.3 million in revenue in the first year and growth to $8.5 million by the fifth year, the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, even though the business plan claims "a small team of employees" including a "CEO/President," "Sales and Marketing Manager," "Operations Manager," "Finance Manager," "IT Manager," and "a Network of Destination Managers," the Petitioner did not specify the total number of individuals he plans to employ or demonstrate the relevance of these numbers and show that future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to any particular region or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not establish that such employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers in any area or would substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. For all these reasons, the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having national importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 3 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the national importance part.No broader implications shown
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the 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 ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 4
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.