The Petitioner, a physical therapist and entrepreneur, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 immigrant 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 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 Director did not make a finding on whether the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. 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 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 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish 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 (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 discretion1
, 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 the proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the United States.
Analysis
The Petitioner claimed eligibility for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director's decision focuses entirely on the issue of the national interest waiver and includes no determination as to whether the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification. Because we nevertheless find that the record does not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies second-preference eligibility criteria. 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"); Matter of L-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). The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national 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. 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.
The Petitioner stated in her business plan that her proposed endeavor is to operate and manage a clinic inl IFlorida, that will provide tailor-made physiotherapy services as well as specialized Pilates and N eo Pilates courses. She also indicated she will assist individuals in "maintaining and preserving their health, overall well-being and promoting health-conscious behavior," and her clinic will provide respiratory and neurological physiotherapy for patients suffering from Covid-19.
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as a physical therapist improving the health of others has substantial merit but not national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar' s analytical framework. 2Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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. As it relates to the Petitioner's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of her business rather than the in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature).
importance of physical therapy, small businesses, and entrepreneurism. Further, "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. The broader implications of the proposed endeavor, national and/or international, can inform us of the proposed endeavor's national importance. That is not to say that the implications are viewed solely through a geographical lens. Broader implications can reach beyond a particular proposed endeavor's geographical locus and focus. The relevant inquiry is whether the broader implications apply beyond just narrowly conferring the proposed endeavor's benefit. And 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.
Moreover, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. In Dhanasar, we determined the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level ofhaving national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. We recognize the overall value of providing physical therapy services; however, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific undertaking stands to have an impact beyond the organization and clients she would serve, or that her proposed work would otherwise have broader implications for the healthcare industry or initiatives. For example, the record does not establish the Petitioner has plans to introduce novel methodologies or medical advancements that may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the field or industry, or otherwise articulate how she will contribute to research and development of our nation's physical therapy services. Although the petitioner stated in her business plan that she will train new professionals in N eo Pilates, an exercise method that integrates conventional Pilates techniques, functional training, and circus arts, she does not explain if this exercise method is unavailable in the United States. In addition, the Petitioner does not indicate the breakdown of time spent providing physical therapy services and providing training in Neo Pilates at her clinic to understand the overall impact of training. Here, the record does not show through supporting documentation how her specific company that provides physical therapy services stands to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.Job creation or economic claims unsupported The Petitioner's business plan makes various financial projections but has not offered evidence to corroborate the contents.Plan or projections not corroborated The business plan makes various projections that the company will purportedly achieve in five years, such as increasing the sales forecast from $780,000 in year one to $1,565,000.00 by year five. In addition, the business plan stated the company will have 6 employees in year one that will increase to 11 employees by year five. However, the plan does not provide sufficient detail of the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these sales and staffing targets will be realized. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her 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" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) that projected that in the next five years the Petitioner's company will "indirectly sustain an additional 106 jobs, spanning part-time and full-time positions." However, the Petitioner does not elaborate on the 106 indirect jobs a RIMS II calculation anticipates her company will create, such as the type ofjobs those would be, the breakdown of part-time versus full-time positions, and where they would be created. Without more detailed, credible evidence ofthe types ofjobs that would be created and where the jobs would be located, the record does not establish that employing the positions listed in the business plan and indirectly creating 106 unspecified jobs at unspecified locations, would show the type of substantial positive economic effects, and whether the effects would be particularly in an economically depressed area, contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. at 889-90. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
The Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We acknowledge the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to the third prong of Dhanasar but, having found that the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as to national importance, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the remaining Dhanasar prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.