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).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof 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 Christo '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. An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). 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. Id.
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) of the 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
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and the record supports this conclusion. Therefore, the primary issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner meets the requirements of the three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework and otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
In denying the Petition, SCOPS addressed all three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. Although SCOPS found substantial merit in the proposed endeavor, the decision concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance, that the Petitioner is wellpositioned to advance the endeavor, and that on the balance waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the United States.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the decision inadequately addresses whether the endeavor will "substantially benefit prospectively the ... cultural or educational interests ... of the United States." Id. The Petitioner contends that the decision overlooked the aspects ofthe Beneficiary's endeavor that relate to the advancement of human knowledge and instead focused on the lack of economic benefits to the United States, and that the decision was in error.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
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. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with the Director's conclusion that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, the study of ancient inscriptions and the preservation of vital U.S. epigraphical resources, teaching and research in the classics, has substantial merit. Id. However, while the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not show it has national importance.
In res onse to the re uest for additional evidence (RFE , the Petitioner resents an article from the an award from th including
L...--------r----------'--, funding for th ro • ect evidence of fundin for the and material fro __.____________________________. as indicators that the Beneficiary's endeavor is nationally important. The matter here is not whether epigraphical and palaeological studies are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of the Beneficiary's specific endeavor, the study and teaching of the classics atOthe preservation of epigraphical resources, and epigraphical and palaeoligcal research. Here, the Petitioner does not provide specific details as to how the Beneficiary's endeavor would extend beyond p. 3 her students or those studying epigraphy so that her students, those attending the conferences where the Beneficiary is presenting her research or those studying the materials that she writes and collaborates on, are able to produce an impact that reaches a national level.
On appeal, the Petitioner also points to letters of support discussing the Beneficiary's knowledge, skills, and work experience, but these letters do not sufficiently explain the national importance of her specific endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong. For instance, the letter from a professor atl I I lDr. S-2
, discusses the Beneficiary's published contributions in Classical reviews and at conferences. He explains that the Beneficiary is an "asset to this nation's community of classical scholars." Likewise, Dr. L-, thel l favorably remarks on the Beneficiary's research and teaching career, and states that "preserving, cataloging, and understanding U.S. epigraphical resources is unquestionably critical to the cultural and educational interests of this country."
While Drs. S- and L- provide details about the Beneficiary's skills and abilities, they do not sufficiently identify, analyze, or discuss how the Petitioner's proposed work will broadly impact the United States.3 Without more, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how the proposed endeavor will have the effect of national importance. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. The Petitioner has not done so here.
In Dhanasar, we determined 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. Dhanasar at 893. Here too, while we agree with the Petitioner that "preservation, cataloging, and enhancing availability of resources for the study of ancient history, texts, and artifacts is critically important to our cultural and educational heritage", the record does not show how the proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond those receiving this information or those accessing the scholarly materials to lead to "national or even global implications" more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Id. at 889.
Notably, the Petitioner further asserts on appeal thatOis one ofthe premier centers for epigraRhical and paleographical studies and that the Beneficiary's appointment to the Director ofEpigraphy ate=] "is clear evidence of the prestige that she has achieved." However, the Beneficiary's knowledge, skills, and experience in her field relate to the second prong ofthe Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s first prong.
Conclusion
The Beneficiary has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, and therefore we conclude that she has not established she 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 under Dhanasar's second and third prongs. 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 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).
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.