The Petitioner, a computer systems engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 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 although the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he had not established 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. 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.
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. 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. 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 of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category ifthe petitioner demonstrates 1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). p. 2 that (1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements ofa job offer and thus ofa labor certification. The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the noncitizen 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. The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether the noncitizen 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.Past record does not show influence or success A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also key considerations.
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen's qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Each ofthe factors considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
The Petitioner proposes to work as a computer system engineer/architect and seeks to establish robust security protocols to enforce national policies and create training policies to enhance cybercrime awareness among both small and large enterprises. The Director denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the evidence does not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates the same arguments and resubmits previously submitted documents to demonstrate his eligibility for the national interest waiver and underscore the sufficiency of the submitted evidence. For example, the Petitioner contends that he will create many jobs to meet the growing demand for cybersecurity professionals by sharing his expertise and developing programs to foster job creation opportunities for U.S. citizens. The Petitioner further asserts his plan to benefit economically depressed areas by offering training that enables individuals to secure higher-paying jobs.
The Petitioner's brief consists of conclusory statements that do not discuss the Director's specific reasoning. Furthermore, the Petitioner offers the same or similar arguments he presented to the Director and were found unpersuasive. Importantly, on appeal the Petitioner does not address the p. 3 specific conclusions the Director reached in the denial based on their review of the Petitioner's evidence. The Petitioner also does not contest any aspect of the Director's decision and does not identify an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the Director as a basis for appeal. Instead, the Petitioner points to the same evidence already on record and neither acknowledges nor addresses the Director's grounds for denial.
The Director's decision adequately addressed the evidence previously submitted and determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he merited a national interest waiver. The Petitioner was therefore given a sufficient explanation of the grounds for denial as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). Accordingly, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision regarding the discussion of the national interest waiver. See Matter of Burbano, 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).
Because the Petitioner does not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact made by the Director, we must dismiss the appeal. Since the Petitioner failed to establish the national importance ofhis proposed endeavor as required by the first prong ofthe Dhanasar precedent decision, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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.