The Petitioner, an industrial engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 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 the record did not support a finding 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 ofproofto 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.
Ifa 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
The Petitioner claims he intends to come to the United States and work as an entrepreneur in the quality control and project management field, seeking to enhance operational efficiency and project management across various industries. He states his proposed endeavor is "to create a company specializing in providing customized solutions for the manufacturing and packaging of paints for clients in the sector." He claims that the endeavor will "offer consulting services to assist clients in adapting their factories and existing machinery to better meet market demands and increase efficiency." The Petitioner argues his proposed endeavor will promote job creation, stimulate innovation and technology, increase industrial productivity, support sustainability, attract foreign investment, contribute to trade balance, and encourage education and training. He further argues on appeal that "by focusing on enhancing operation efficiency, safety, and sustainability across [various] industries, the proposed venture has the potential to create a ripple effect of economic benefits." The Petitioner contends his professional background in industrial engineering and knowledge of the paint market give him the necessary experience to succeed in this endeavor, allowing him to, as he claims, "identify specific customer needs and offer tailor-made solutions to optimize their production and packaging processes."
To qualify for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner must first show that he qualifies for the EB-2 classification under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, either as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. The Director determined the Petitioner met the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. However, the Director denied the waiver request, having further determined that although the Petitioner established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor, he did not establish its national importance, that he is well-positioned to advance that proposed endeavor, or that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification We agree that the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has national importance and will dismiss the appeal accordingly.
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor met the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Specifically, the Director determined the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor would have broader implications to the general U.S. economy and workforce, having significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise having substantial positive economic effects such that he established its national importance.No broader implications shown The first prong of Dhanasar, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. 26 T&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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id.
The evidence submitted by the Petitioner does not establish his proposed endeavor in project management and quality control would operate on such a large scale as to have a national impact on p. 3 "small businesses, startups, and entrepreneurs," as claimed by the Petitioner. When determining the national importance ofa proposed endeavor, the relevant question is not the importance ofthe industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work; rather, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance, for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. Although the Petitioner has provided evidence of his professional experience, including academic records and letters of reference, the inquiry in the first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See id. The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." See id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. The Petitioner does not offer evidence to show how his proposed endeavor would impact the broader U.S. economy and various fields through project management and quality control or otherwise would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. Although the Petitioner's specific venture has the potential to provide valuable services to his clients, he did not establish his specific proposed endeavor will have substantial national implications or have a broader impact beyond the individuals directly served by his company. The Petitioner also has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to promote job creation and significantly reduce labor shortages and stimulate "economic growth through job creation" as claimed.Relied on a labor shortage Moreover, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. Similarly, the Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that the proposed endeavor "aligns with growing environmental awareness in the United States and will help companies adapt to increasingly stringent environmental regulations," and will "help improve the United States's trade balance, bringing in foreign exchange and strengthening the country's economic position on the global stage." While we acknowledge the importance of the field of project management and quality control, the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor would have broader implications to these or other identified fields to establish its national importance.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's See id. at 893.
Further, the record does not establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have substantial positive impacts on the U.S. economy. Although any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact a local economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from his proposed endeavor would rise to the level of national importance. An endeavor may have national importance if it "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area ...." Id. at 890. The Petitioner seeks to come to the United States to enhance project management and quality control by establishing a quality management consulting service. He asserts that his business will generate jobs for U.S. workers and positively contribute to the U.S. economy. In his business plan, the Petitioner indicated his company would generate a cumulative 14 jobs by its fifth year of business. However, the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections. Further, even if sufficient basis were provided for the proposed endeavor's revenue and job creation projections, these figures do not establish that the Petitioner's company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance. The Petitioner has not explained how his proposed employment metrics and revenue would have impact beyond his business's area of intended operations. Upon de novo review, the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects.
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 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).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not established he meets the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.