The Petitioner, a dietitian and nutritionist, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so.
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, she 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. 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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration p. 2 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 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 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. 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.
Analysis
The Petitioner, a dietitian and nutritionist, seeks to become a licensed dietitian and nutritionist in the United States and open a nutrition clinic. The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) requesting, among other things, further evidence of how the proposed endeavor would be of national importance. In response, the Petitioner provided additional documents including professional plan and statement, business plan, and industry reports and articles. In denying the petition, the Director concluded that although Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish the national importance ofher endeavor. The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not establish her proposed endeavor has broader implications, has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, and that it would broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment.No broader implications shown Furthermore, the Director found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm whether her proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erroneously applied the relevant law. The Petitioner further argues that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof and instead imposed a stricter standard. The Petitioner also highlights the evidence submitted in support of the petition and in response to the RFE to underscore the sufficiency of the submitted evidence and contends that she submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate the national importance ofher proposed endeavor.
As previously noted, the first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 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 record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to operate her company, a nutrition and wellness center. Through this endeavor, the Petitioner seeks to provide treatment services for children and adults affected by obesity, eating disorders, and physical and mental ailments. She states her goal is to enhance the prevalence and effectiveness of treatment, ultimately promoting the well-being of individuals. The Petitioner claims that she will successfully operate her business due to her extensive work experience and entrepreneurial background.
The Petitioner maintains that her proposed endeavor is of national importance because it will generate "substantial ripple effects" affecting key commercial and business activities and will serve the business development and functions of U.S. companies. The Petitioner submits letters expressing interest in investing in her company as well as letters from potential patients, citing the Petitioner's company's potential for growth and success in the United States. The Petitioner also submits recommendation letters from individuals who attest to her knowledge and experience as a clinical nutritionist. In addition, the record includes various industry reports including articles discussing the importance of entrepreneurship, nutrition, and the prevalence of obesity in the United States. The record therefore demonstrates that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor aimed at providing treatments to combat obesity has substantial merit.
Moreover, although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner's claimed extensive experiences as a nutritionist and managing a business are material to Dhanasar 's second p. 4 prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91.
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. While the Petitioner claims that her proposed endeavor is of national importance, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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. Id. at 893. Here, the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work as a nutritionist operating her clinic offers broader implications in her field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance.
Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence she submitted in support of her petition, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend its benefits beyond her immediate patients and customers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance.
The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself: not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must establish that her specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. The Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States. The Petitioner projects that her proposed endeavor will have hiring phases with the intention of hiring two nutritionists, a physical therapist, a mental health therapist, a speech therapist, and one receptionist during the first phase, however, the Petitioner has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economies resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
While the Petitioner also asserts that her company will hire "several well qualified U.S. workers as nutritionists, therapists, and healthcare support," she has not demonstrated that her undertaking has implications beyond her employees and customers. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not indicate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on various industry reports in an attempt to establish that her business and proposed endeavor hold national importance. She argues that her proposed endeavor will "substantially benefit the U.S. business industry, thus impacting societal welfare and economic prosperity at large." The record nonetheless does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have broader implications beyond benefitting the Petitioner's patients and customers. As previously mentioned, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner has not p. 5 sufficiently explained how she will positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. Without evidence projecting U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, it is insufficient to assert that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the proposed endeavor would rise to the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
The Petitioner reiterates that her proposed endeavor is of national importance because the field of clinical nutrition and health will address the widespread issue of obesity in the country and will have a significant impact on both the economy and social development. The Petitioner must nonetheless demonstrate her specific proposed endeavor of working as a dietitian and nutritionist rather than the importance of the national initiatives and interests, industries, or fields. She has not done so. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010).
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding her 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).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude that she has not established that she 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.