The Petitioner, an adapted physical education specialist/entrepreneur, 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 the Petitioner had not established for 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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 they merit a discretionary waiver of the 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 discretion1 , grant a national interest waiver if petitioners show:
- The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance;
- The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Analysis
As indicated above, the first prong for a national interest waiver relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner initially provided a "Definitive Statement" claiming:
I intend to continue using my expertise and knowledge to work as an Adapted Physical Education Specialist/Entrepreneur and contribute to the U.S. economy, and its societal welfare, through the development and expansion ofmy already registered U.S. company, I I The business is a wellness center focused on combating obesity across the children and adult populations in the U.S.
Explicitly, it is healthcare and aquatic fitness center that will facilitate and promote the benefits of aquatic sports, so as to invest in Americans' wellbeing. It will also offer supervised physical exercises, as well as patient personalization services.
In addition, the Petitioner submitted! !business plan and a wide range of industry articles and reports, such as adult obesity, physical activity guidelines, entrepreneurship, immigrants and the economy, immigration, wage and data information, and employment statistics. In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted an updated business plan and "Definitive Statement" claiming:
... [T]o create jobs and a profitable market,I I will hire several qualified U.S.
Petitioner provided documentation relating to various industries and topics, ranging from the importance of entrepreneurism and small businesses to physical education and exercise. In addition, the Petitioner contends that his endeavor "is directly linked to U.S. National Initiatives and therefore, of National Importance," and he "will work aligned with several national interests and national initiatives in the United States, including promoting the health and well-being of all citizens, promoting physical activity and healthy lifestyles, and ensuring that students with disabilities have access to high-quality physical education programs." Here, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of owning and operating I Irather than the importance of the national initiatives and interests, industries, or fields. 2 In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" ofthe 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."Proposed endeavor too vague 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.
In addition, the Petitioner stresses his "twenty-nine (29) years of work experience." However, the Petitioner's experience, skills, expertise, and abilities 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.
Moreover, 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 business plan claims thatl I"will take an approach to facilitating the benefits of aquatic sports to patient's wellbeing in conjunction with supervised physical exercises that is geared toward patient personalization," the record does not show through supporting documentation how his company stands to sufficiently extend beyond its prospective clients, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.Plan or projections not corroborated 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.
Finally, the Petitioner did not show his proposed endeavor offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.Job creation or economic claims unsupported The business plan does not reflect that his company's future business activities and staffing levels stand to provide substantial economic benefits to specific regions or to the United States. While the five-year tax generation forecasts $6 million, five-year revenue forecasts $17.7 million, and five-year payroll expenses forecasts $14 million, which all include state, regional, and national expansion, the business plan does not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the company's profits and revenues would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, although the Petitioner claims the business would create "about one hundred and eighty-five (185) jobs for U.S. workers across the United States," the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to Florida or the region or U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not demonstrate that such hiring figures would utilize a significant population of workers in the area or would substantially 2 The Petitioner's evidence and arguments relate more to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor. p. 4 impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. For all these reasons, the record does not establish that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its 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.No broader implications shown
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 ofhis eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he 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.