The Petitioner, a financial analyst, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree, but had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts he is eligible 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; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). Upon de nova 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.
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 of discretion , 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 beneficialtotheUnitedStates to waivetherequirementsofajobofferandthusofalaborcertification.
The first prong, substantial merit and national impmiance, 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) (NYSD01).
SeealsoPoursinav. USCIS,936F.3d868,2019WL4051593(9thCir.2019)(findingUSCIS'decisiontograntordeny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter Dhanasarstates that after a petitioner has established p. 3 national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, evenassummg 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 In this matter, the Petitioner's initial "Professional Plan & Statement" stated that his proposed endeavor "is to work as a Financial Analyst, to advise U.S. companies on how to grow successfully, meet their goals, and remain profitable." In response to the Director's request for evidence, he added that he will "specifically focus[] on financial analysis and foreign direct investments, while simultaneously enhancing U.S. financial markets and allowing for effective cross-border operations between the United States and Latin America."
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member o f the professions holding an advanced degree. The Director also detennined that the Petitioner had established that the proposed endeavor met the substantial merit pmiion of the first prong set fmih in the Dhanasar analytical framework. The Director's decision then discussed the deficiencies in the submitted evidence and provided a well- reasoned explanation as to why the Petitioner did not meet the national importance portion ofthe first prong.
Therefore, upon consideration ofthe entire record, including the arguments made on appeal, we adopt andaffim1theDirector'sdecisionwiththecommentsbelow.4 SeeMatterofP. Singh,Attorney,26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter o.fBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case).
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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We further indicated that"welookforbroaderimplications"oftheproposedendeavorandthat"[a]nundertakingmayhave national impmiance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. Wealsostatedthat"[a]nendeavorthathassignificantpotentialtoemployU.S.workersor 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.
On appeal, rather than providing additional evidence to overcome the Director's conclusions, the Petitioner again repeatedly relies on his experience and his prior career accomplishments in Brazil to establishthenationalimportanceofhisproposedendeavor. However,thePetitioner'sexpe1iiseand to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor ce1iification.
Analysis
SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs.
While wemaynotdiscusseveiydocumentsubmitted,wehavereviewedandconsideredeachone. p. 4 record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance ofhis proposed work.
The Petitioner also relies on submitted reports and articles about his industry and makes general assertions such as his "endeavor is unquestionably of national importance, given the significant economic impact of the financial services industry in the United States, as well as globally."Proposed endeavor too vague As previously stated, however, 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, not the importance or economic benefits of his industry.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
In addition, the Petitioner generally claims that his "endeavor is of national importance because it not only enhances his served companies' and clients' financial objectives, but it also results in steep economic solutions for whole market players, such as business operations, commercial transactions, investments, and the U.S. economy at large," but does not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effectsforournation. WithoutevidenceregardinganyprojectedU.S.economicimpactorjobcreation directly attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner ' s endeavor would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects"contemplatedbyDhanasar. Id.at890.
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, we similarly find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer(s) and clients to impact the industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.No broader implications shown Nor has he shown that the particular work he proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in finance or otherwise has broader implications for his field. For all these 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 hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding the remaining issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision ofwhich is unnecessary to the results they reach");see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&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 notmettherequisite firstprongof theDhanasar analytical framework, we conclude he has not established that he is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter p. 5 ofdiscretion. Theappealwillbedismissedfortheabovestatedreasons,witheachconsideredasan independent and alternate basis for the decision.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.