The Petitioner, a Project Manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 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 record did not establish that the Petitioner had identified a specific proposed endeavor, established the national importance of that endeavor or established that he was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts eligibility and provides additional statements regarding his proposed endeavor. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act.
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that:
- 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.
Id.
Analysis
The Petitioner seeks to work in the field of project management with his own company, I I __ The Petitioner did not initially provide supporting evidence with his petition. The Director sent a request for evidence (RFE) seeking additional documentation of the Petitioner's qualifications for EB-2 classification, the proposed endeavor, and eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. In response, the Petitioner provided evidence of his foreign degrees, a personal statement for each of the issues in the Director's RFE, financial statements and taxes for his current business, letters of support, a business plan, and contracts from past projects with railway companies. The Director determined that the Petitioner had not met his burden of proof in establishing the national importance of the endeavor, whether he was well positioned to complete that endeavor, or whether, on balance, it was in the best interest of the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements because he did not identify the specific endeavor he proposed to undertake.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
The Petitioner provided an article to the Director from I Ia trade magazine, published in 2022 regarding his current business and years of experience. The article states: p. 3 not identify any specific rail companies in his personal statement or business plan, or further define the scope of work he provides to them.
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
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 id. 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 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.
Here, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not identified a specific proposed endeavor that he seeks to undertake. The Petitioner, on appeal, provides vague statements regarding project management in the transportation industry to advance railway expansion and safety. He contends that traveling by road is unsafe and that a thriving railway industry would lessen the number ofroad deaths. The Petitioner does not adequately explain how the specific proposed endeavor he aims to undertake would save the lives of individuals on U.S. roadways as claimed in his personal statement. He does not identify a specific railway project, location, or scope of services to be completed. While the Petitioner's business plan states there are three potential revenue streams, he does not provide details of those revenue streams, or the steps he would take to advance them. Instead, he makes general statements about rail travel and the transportation industry without referencing his specific work, how it would impact road safety, or its implications for the broader national economy.
The Petitioner's business plan does not provide a current or future staffing model for his company or support the revenue projections with probative documentation. The two contracts provided by the Petitioner indicate that he bid on, and won, government contracts to procure and supply specific parts to a northeast rail company. However, the Petitioner has not provided additional details regarding the contracts, the potential to win future contracts, or a greater explanation of the business model he intends to follow. Absent this information, the Petitioner has not established that the economic, scientific, or cultural impacts of his proposed endeavor would rise to the level of national importance. It is the burden of the Petitioner to identify his proposed endeavor and to provide probative evidence to support his assertions that it has national importance. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375. As the Petitioner has not established that his endeavor's prospective impact supports a finding of national importance, he has not met 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 hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility for a p. 4 national interest waiver under the second and third prongs ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework. 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).
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.