The Petitioner is construction manager who seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, 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 determined that despite qualifying for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as an individual holding an advanced degree 1 and demonstrating that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor, the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. Applying the three-prong analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that his endeavor has national importance or that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof 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 ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015).
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that his specific proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the third Dhanasar prong. 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).
Further, we adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case).
In addressing the issue ofnational importance within the context ofthe Petitioner's proposed endeavor to own a construction company, the Director addressed industry articles that the Petitioner submitted, noting that the Petitioner did not explain how his endeavor would address the labor shortages highlighted in the articles.Relied on a labor shortage The Director also discussed the Petitioner's business plan and determined that the plan's staffing and wage projections, which include hiring four employees and paying approximately $400,000 in wages by the fifth year of operation, do not demonstrate the endeavor's significant potential for broad economic impact, such as employing or offering economic benefits in an economically depressed area.Job creation or economic claims unsupported The Director concluded that the endeavor's impact would be limited to the company's clients and would not broadly impact the field of construction and home improvement, broadly enhance societal, or offer substantial positive economic benefits as contemplated in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.Benefits limited to an employer or its clients
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his endeavor "aligns perfectly with the urgent national need for affordable housing and sustainable growth" and claims that he is "well-equipped to employ green building materials and techniques." However, the Petitioner does not provide evidence to demonstrate that the impact to affordable housing, sustainable growth, or the environment would be so significant as to result in substantial positive effects as contemplated in Matter of Dhanasar. Likewise, the Petitioner does not offer evidence to show how his specific endeavor would mitigate the U.S. housing shortage or impact public health at a level that is commensurate with having national importance. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). And while the Petitioner lists multiple other benefits that he claims will be the "indirect economic impact" from his endeavor, he does not provide specific plans, projections, or calculations in support of his broad claims.Plan or projections not corroborated Nor does he otherwise provide an evidentiary basis to demonstrate that his work will, for example, prompt job creation and growth of small businesses. While any business activity has the potential to positively impact the economy, the record does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's construction company could generate such significant economic activity that it would rise to the level of "substantial positive economic effects." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
In sum, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.