The Petitioner 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and asserts that he is eligible for the benefit sought. 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 ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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. If 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 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.
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional but did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework and will dismiss the appeal accordingly.
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. 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.
In the initial filing, the Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor was to provide services as a "Business and Financial Manager Consultant." Specifically, he contended he would "use my experience in finance to help enterprises in the U.S. improve operations and achieve better productivity and profitability levels, therefore generating revenues within the country and creating employment opportunities." The Petitioner further stated that he would focus "on the provision of in-depth investments, credit risk analysis, elaboration of business planning, and risk rating methodologies involving companies within different sectors ofthe economy and companies ofdifferent segments and sizes."
The Director issued a request for evidence in which they requested, in part, additional evidence to establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance. The Director noted that the Petitioner's statement did not go into detail on his proposed endeavor and how he would be achieving said endeavor. Further, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposed to undertake had significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial economic effects for the national economy, as the Petitioner had asserted in the initial submission. 2 In response to the request for evidence, the Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor would be to "offer business consultancy services to U.S. clients and business."Job creation or economic claims unsupported He intended to "help clients by providing well-considered, specialized consultancy services." The business plan submitted in support indicated that the Petitioner planned to establish a consulting company as a "lead business process outsourcing and financial planning enterprise in I I Massachusetts," targeting "small- and midsized businesses and start-ups in need of high-quality financial advice and planning services, as well as investment planning, accounting, and business process outsourcing services." The Petitioner did 2 The Director also requested additional documentation to establish the second and third Dhanasar prongs. p. 3 not provide further detail on the specific prospective occupation or proposed endeavor that he would focus on to illustrate the nature of the work that he would perform during his day-to-day work activities. Nor did the Petitioner provide a detailed description explaining the manner through which he would prospectively deliver these services, supported by documentary evidence.
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualified for a national interest waiver because he did not meet the 3-prong Dhanasar framework. In regard to prong one, the Director determined that while the Petitioner had established substantial merit, he had not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective benefit of his proposed endeavor stood to "sufficiently extend beyond the creation of his firm and clientele to impact his field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance."
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that in denying the petition, the Director "is applying the standard of proof of criminal cases, 'which is beyond a reasonable doubt"' rather than "the standard of proof applicable to the instant case, which is 'preponderance of the evidence."' An appeal must specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Although the Petitioner asserts that he has provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate his eligibility for a national interest waiver, he does not specify, as required, in what way the Director applied this stricter standard. 3 The Petitioner further highlights on appeal the evidence he submitted in support of his petition and in response to the Director's request for evidence and maintains that he has demonstrated the proposed endeavor's national importance. He again asserts that his proposed endeavor "as an entrepreneur offering business consultancy services to U.S. clients holds national importance" because "business consultants are crucial for helping organizations improve performance and efficiency by providing effective business analysis, solutions, and maintaining companies' agenda of targets." The record reflects the Director's consideration of all evidence in the totality. The Petitioner's general objections on appeal regarding his eligibility for the EB-2 classification are insufficient to overcome the conclusions the Director reached based on the evidence submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not articulated on appeal how the Director erred in finding that the record did not demonstrate the proposed endeavor has national importance. The record does not offer evidence sufficient to translate how the Petitioner's specific work for his prospective clients stands to sufficiently impact U.S. interests or the relevant consulting business more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner has not established on appeal that his intent to apply his knowledge to his prospective clients is an activity that will have a broad impact.No broader implications shown
As for the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that his proposed endeavor will create jobs and contribute to the nation's economy, he has not demonstrated that the endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the nation. See Dhanasar at 890. Absent probative evidence to show the realistic potential of the Petitioner's company to operate at all, it is not evident that the company will generate revenue to create jobs, to expand, or to otherwise notably impact the economy in a location in which it intends to operate. 3 The Petitioner also claims on appeal that the Director erredin determining that he had made "material changes" to his petition when he submitted his business plan in response to the Director's request for evidence.Tried to change the endeavor after filing The record does not establish that the Director made such a determination.
In addition, the Petitioner contends that based on his "superior performance in my field, professional achievements, and expertise, it is in the national interest to grant me a National Interest Waiver." While the Petitioner stresses his credentials and work experience, which were also highlighted in his resume, work experience letters, and letters in support, such evidence addresses the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience; these are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Evidence of the Petitioner's credentials and experience do not demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor or establish that the impact of the endeavor would extend beyond the Petitioner's clientele.
The record does not establish the national importance ofthe proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reason for dismissal is 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 agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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 a noncitizen is otherwise ineligible). The petition will remain denied.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.