The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) professional, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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. § l 153(b)(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not qualify for EB-2 classification and did not establish that 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 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 of Christa'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) ofthe Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 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
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a business plan for a company that will offer "specialized IT consulting and training services to help businesses integrate new technologies, optimize their operations, and enhance their competitive edge." The business plan states the company will offer services in IT assessment and planning, information security consulting, and IT training.
A. EB-2 Classification
The Director determined the Petitioner was not eligible for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability. As the Petitioner is not eligible for a national interest waiver for the reasons discussed below, we do not reach and hereby reserve our determination of her eligibility for EB-2 classification. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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).
B. National Interest Waiver: Substantial Merit and National Importance The first prong in the Dhanasar analytical framework for evaluating national interest waivers is substantial merit and national importance and focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. We agree.
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90.
The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor did not have national importance under these factors. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts her proposed endeavor has national importance because workers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) "play a crucial role in the United States economy, driving innovation and contributing to job creation and improved living standards." We recognize the importance of STEM and the value of work in STEM fields. However, merely working in a STEM field does not establish the national importance of a specific proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner also claims her proposed endeavor addresses the shortage of women in IT and the national interest in gender diversity and inclusion in IT. The Petitioner does not establish, however, how her individual employment in IT would address the shortage of women, gender diversity and inclusion in IT on a level indicative of national importance.Relied on a labor shortage Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of issues affecting a field or occupation in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."Proposed endeavor too vague Id. at 889. The Petitioner further asserts her proposed endeavor will lead to job creation in the United States both directly and indirectly by helping American institutions and companies expand their operations and improve their practices. The record does not support this claim. The Petitioner's business plan estimates her company will employ three individuals the first year, increasing to 10 individuals in the fifth year. The business plan projects the company will earn a net profit of $24,068, increasing to $100,307 in the fifth year and will pay taxes of $55,315 the first year, increasing to $176,390 in the fifth year. The record does not indicate that the employment of up to 10 individuals is significantly high in the IT industry which the business plan states employs over 12.1 million people. The Petitioner has also not established that a net profit ofup to $100,307 and the payment ofup to $176,390 in taxes would have a substantial positive economic effect on a level commensurate with national importance in an industry whose economic impact is approximately $1. 9 billion according to the business plan.Job creation or economic claims unsupported The Petitioner submitted support letters from individuals who praise her skills and accomplishments but do not attest to the national importance of her proposed endeavor. E-Z-H- commends the Petitioner's skills and experience. F-D-N- praises the Petitioner's talent and accomplishments in IT education. A-S-M- and B-R-B- also commend the Petitioner's work as an IT teacher. E-S -L- praises the Petitioner's work as the manager of a partnership between H-O-S- recommends the Petitioner based on her skills and accomplishments at th IHowever E-Z-H- F-D-N- A-S-M- B-R-B- , E- S-L-, and H-D- ' ' ' ' ' ' S- do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner's business plan states her company will offer services in IT assessment and planning, custom solution development, project management, IT training, and information security consulting. The record does not demonstrate, however, that any of the company's services are unique, innovative, or would otherwise have national or even global implications in the IT industry. See id. (discussing improved manufacturing processes or medical advances as examples of national or even global implications within a particular field). The record also does not establish that the Petitioner's company's provision ofIT training would extend beyond the trainees to impact her field more broadly. See id. at 893 ( determining 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).
In sum, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within her field, or other broader implications indicating national importance. Consequently, the Petitioner does not meet the first Dhanasar prong.
C. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs
As this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of her eligibility under the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INSv. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not established the national importance ofher proposed endeavor and does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, she has not demonstrated that she is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.