The Petitioner, a nautical operations specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 field denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus ofthe 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 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 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. An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years ofprogressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship p. 2 and Immigration Services (USCTS) may, as a 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.
Analysis
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. The field also concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit as required by the first prong of Dhanasar and that he was well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, consistent with the second prong of Dhanasar. The field further determined that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor had national importance, as explained in the first prong of Dhanasar, or that on balance waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States, as specified in the third prong ofDhanasar.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with Service Center Operation's conclusion that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit as it falls within the range of areas of substantial merit, namely business, entrepreneurialism, and education. Id. However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish its national importance.
The Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor was to launch and develop a maritime academy that would provide "essential Standard of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) courses required for cruise and yacht members" to ensure "safety, compliance, and professionalism." The Petitioner asserted his academy would "set the standard for excellence in maritime education and training and certification," offering courses including STCW basic safety training, advanced STCW courses, and environmental compliance, bridge and navigation, safety and crisis management, hull integrity, cargo safety, yacht, and customized training. The Petitioner contended that his proposed endeavor would have national importance, asserting it would ensure that maritime crew members are competent and well-prepared for their roles and contribute to a safer, more proficient, and environmentally conscious maritime sector. The Petitioner also indicated that his academy would address a shortage of qualified maritime personnel in the industry. He further stated his proposed academy would significantly benefit the United States economy by generating strong revenues and creating jobs. The Petitioner submitted a business plan, several support letters from his colleagues, 1 See 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. 3 and articles discussing issues in the maritime industry, including shortages in qualified personnel in the field.
SCOPS later issued a request for evidence (RFE) indicating that while the provided reference letters discussed the Petitioner's work ethic and professionalism, and the submitted articles general information about the industry, the evidence did not specifically discuss his proposed endeavor and its potential prospective national importance.Proposed endeavor too vague The field stated the business plan did not sufficiently demonstrate that his proposed maritime academy would have substantial positive economic impacts beyond the community and impact the industry more broadly.Job creation or economic claims unsupported SCOPS further indicated that the Petitioner did not adequately establish, as asserted, that his proposed academy would elevate or improve training methods in the maritime industry as a whole.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's As such, SCOPS requested that the Petitioner submit additional evidence including a more detailed description of his proposed endeavor and why it had national importance, how it had national implications within his field, the significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have substantial positive economic effects, broadly enhance societal welfare, and/or impact a matter that a government entity described as having national importance.
In response, the Petitioner again reiterated his intention to establish a maritime academy and claimed it would close a significant employment gap in the industry identified by the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD). He stated MARAD called for an expansion in maritime training and recruitment strategies to attract younger workers. The Petitioner also stated that his proposed endeavor would directly promote positive economic impacts by training more qualified crew members "resulting in a litany of new customers for local economies in port cities across the United States," while "enhancing U.S. competitiveness in the boating and cruise industries."
The Petitioner further indicated that his proposed endeavor would address government initiatives, including those emphasized by the Maritime Security Program (MSP) and the National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) focused on training "a new generation ofU.S. mariners" to sustain the qualified mariner pool essential to maintaining U.S. flagged vessels with U.S. citizen mariners. Likewise, the Petitioner pointed to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WOIA) aimed at supporting job training programs, including those in the maritime industry. He claimed his proposed endeavor would align with these objectives by "equipping workers with high-demand, transferable skills and supporting job creation within economically distressed areas." He also emphasized the America's Marine Highway Program (AMHP), which had the objective of reducing congestion and environmental impacts through waterways. The Petitioner stated that this initiative required "a welltrained domestic maritime workforce" to boost domestic shipping capabilities and reduce highway congestion. The Petitioner further provided an addendum to his business plan including additional assertions on how his proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects on economically distressed communities inl !Florida.
SCOPS concluded the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance ofhis proposed endeavor stating he did not sufficiently support his claim that his company would generate substantial positive economic impacts on a national level. SCOPS reasoned that the Petitioner did not indicate the number of individuals his proposed maritime academy would train or how much it would charge for these services, and in turn, how he would sustain the expenses his proposed business. Further, the field stated the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed maritime training services were unavailable p. 4 from other sources and how a company of his size would impact maritime training on a national level, including having a substantial impact on the claimed shortage of these professionals.
On appeal, the Petitioner disagrees with the field's conclusion that he did not establish the substantial positive economic effects of his business plan, asserting that he submitted "a plan of attack to employ workers ... particularly in economically depressed areas." The Petitioner contends that SCOPS improperly considered his employment projections when analyzing national importance, asserting this is only relevant to whether he was well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, an element the field concluded he established. In addition, the Petitioner asserts, contrary to the field's conclusion, that he submitted relevant articles demonstrating that other providers of maritime training were not sufficiently meeting national workforce capacities in the industry.
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. 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 emphasized the size and importance of the maritime industry, including the crnise ship and recreational boating industries, particularly in the I I area. He also often discussed an asserted shortage of qualified maritime professionals to fill positions in these industries and pointed to government initiatives to fill them, including by the Maritime Security Program and the National Defense Reserve Fleet to train "a new generation of U.S. mariners." Although we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided articles and other evidence to support a likely national shortage of qualified maritime professionals, a nexus between this national shortage and his proposed endeavor focused on maritime training does not alone demonstrate that it is of national level importance.Relied on a labor shortage The Petitioner must establish that his proposed endeavor would likely have a potential prospective national impact on this claimed shortage.
However, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that his proposed endeavor would likely have a national level impact on any maritime professional shortage. For instance, the Petitioner provided evidence reflecting that the U.S. Maritime Administration projected that this industry would require "at least 1,800 more mariners tol folly mrt operational demands." The Petitioner proposed to operate one training academy in the Florida area and did not specify how many individuals his business would train, leaving uncertainty as to how this endeavor would have a national level impact and create "a new generation of U.S. mariners." Likewise, the Petitioner did not properly explain and document how his one maritime academy inl Iwould substantially contribute to the qualified mariner pool to maintain U.S. flagged vessels or leading to a "litany of new customers for local economies in port cities across the United States." In fact, the Petitioner provided no information on any training ofmaritime professionals outside ofthel Iarea, leaving question as to the assertion that his trainees would substantially impact port cities across the nation. Similarly, although the Petitioner discussed a general connection between his academy and the AMHP's effort p. 5 to use more waterways, it is not clear how one such school in I .... _.!Florida could have a national level impact on the overall shipping of goods on U.S. waterways.
The Petitioner also asserted that his maritime academy would "elevate training" within the industry and "set the standard for excellence in maritime education and training and certification" but he provided little detail as to how his proposed academy would change the way maritime training was provided nationally. He also did not provide sufficient information on the current quality of this training throughout the industry. For instance, the Petitioner indicated that in 2019 the cruise industry alone generated over $55 billion in revenue and supported "a staggering" 436,600 U.S. jobs. The Petitioner submitted little evidence to demonstrate how his maritime training company, which would have a maximum of 15 employees after five years, would differ in a significant way from other maritime trainers in the industry. Given the statistics on just the cruise industry submitted by the Petitioner, it would be reasonable to conclude there are many such providers of these services in the United States. However, the Petitioner does not properly explain how this proposed business would set a national standard for excellence in maritime training as claimed. Again, the relevant question is not the importance ofthe field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work, but the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake. Id. at 889.
The Petitioner further stated that the field improperly considered his economic projections and business plans when assessing the likelihood of its national importance, asserting this was more relevant to whether he was well-positioned to advance the endeavor. We disagree, as we assess the totality of the evidence when determining national importance. As noted by the field, the Petitioner did not submit information or evidence related to the level of investment in his proposed training academy, leaving further uncertainty as to the likelihood of its potential prospective national level impact.No interest from users, customers or investors In sum, the Petitioner submitted a vague array of claimed maritime training services and potential prospective national impacts, leaving substantial uncertainty as to whether his proposed endeavor would have national importance. The Petitioner must resolve ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988).
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that he submitted a business plan reflecting "a plan of attack to employ workers ... particularly in economically depressed areas." However, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor "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 only vaguely points to various economically distressed communities in the general! larea and states that his proposed business would be located downtown, although questionably not in one of these identified depressed areas. The Petitioner projected that his maritime academy would hire 15 employees within its first five years. Even if we accept these projections as supported, it is not clear how this would lead to a substantial positive economic effect in an economically depressed area. The Petitioner reasoned his projected jobs would double the income of a typical American household, or impact 15 households and about 80 individuals in 12 economically depressed areas in thel area. However, the Petitioner also stated that these areas in I I have a population of approximately 41,000 people, leaving question as to his assertion that these claimed jobs would lead to a substantial positive economic impact rising to the level of national importance.
I
The Petitioner also emphasizes how close his proposed business would be to numerous recreational boating locations and I I a hub for the cruise ship industry. But, accordin to the submitted evidence, these are both very large industries, the cruise industry at,___---.-__....,......alone accounting for over $6 billion in economic impact annually and recreational boating in.__ _ ___,Florida resulting in $4.1 billion per year. Therefore, it is not clear how the Petitioner's economic projection that his academy would earn about $1.2 million annually in the fifth year reflects a substantial positive economic effect on these large industries. Although any basic economic activity resulting from the Petitioner's work has the potential to positively impact a local economy, he has not provided sufficient explanation of the prospective national impact directly attributable to his proposed work, or established how his endeavor would impact an economically depressed area. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met 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. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under Dhanasar's third prong. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reached"); 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.