The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver ofthe job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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 that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree, but 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 asserts that he is eligible for a national interest waiver.
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). Upon de nova 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. 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.
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework:
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. - p. 2 (A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare ofthe United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i)Nationalinterestwaiver.... [T]heAttorneyGeneralmay,whentheAttorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer in the United States.
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 o f of discretion , grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficialtotheUnitedStates to waivetherequirementsofajobofferandthusofalaborcertification.
The first prong, substantial merit and national impmiance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreignnationalproposestoundertake. Theendeavor'smeritmaybedemonstratedinarangeofareas 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.
Thesecondprongshiftsthefocusfromtheproposedendeavortotheforeignnational. Todetermine whether he or she 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; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the UnitedStatestowaivetherequirementsofajobofferandthusofalaborcertification. Inperforming this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign Inannouncingthisnewframework,wevacatedourpriorprecedentdecision,MatterofNew YorkStateDepartmentof Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01).
SeealsoPoursinav. USCIS,936F.3d868,2019WL4051593(9thCir.2019)(findingUSCIS'decisiontograntordeny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter Dhanasarstates that after a petitioner has established p. 3 I national 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 foreign national' s contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national' s contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States At the time of filing, the Petitioner was a project execution area supervisor a ~ - - - - - - - - - - . - - ~ IIn reaponse to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner indicated that he was "recently appointed asl Ilead."
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member o f the professions holding an advanced degree. The Director also determined that the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor met both the substantial merit portion o f the first prong and the second prong set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework.
On appeal, the Petitioner repeatedly asserts that his "expertise and impact EXCEEDS that of [Dr.] Dhanasar." As an initial clarification, we note that the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous projects are considerations under the second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." SeeDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
Regarding Dr. Dhanasar's "impact," the Petitioner resubmits evidence regarding Dr. Dhanasar's citation record and a list from U.S. News and World Report ofthe "Best Engineering Schools," noting that it does not include Dr. Dhanasar's employing university. Although we listed Dr. Dhanasar's '·publications and other published materials that cite his work" among the documents he presented and included the name ofthe university where he intended to continue his research, our determination that his proposed endeavor was ofnational importance was based on the following:
The petitioner submitted probative expert letters from individuals holding senior positions in academia, government, and industry that describe the importance of hypersonic propulsion research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests. He also provided media articles and other evidence documenting the interest of the House Committee on Armed Services in the development of hypersonic technologies and discussing the potential significance of U.S. advances in this area of research and development. The letters and the media a1iicles discuss efforts and advances that other countries are currently making in the area of hypersonic propulsion systems and the strategic importance of U.S. advancement in researching and developing these technologies for use in missiles, satellites, and aircraft.
To determine national importance, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to unde1iake." Id. at 889. We fmiher indicated that: to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor ce1iification.
Analysis
SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs.
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. An undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. But we do not evaluate prospective impact solely in geographic terms. Instead, we look for broader implications. Even ventures and undertakings that have as their focus one geographic area of the United States may properly be considered to have national importance...An 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.
T h e P e t i t i o n e r r e f e r e n c e s a n u m b e r o f i n t e r n a l " t e c h n i c a l d o c u m e n t s " h e a u t h o r e d , b u t f a i l s to e s t a b l i s h their importance. For example, two of them appear to be updates to leadership on the 1 I ._________,tfromMay15,2020andApril3,2020. ThePetitioneralsoprovidedemailsfrom colleagues around the world who have asked for "advice" and are appreciative ofhis help. However, these items do not establish any specific original innovations he has been responsible for or that proposed improvements, if any, have had an impact on thd Iindustry or the field of engmeenng, whether they have been adopted by others, or have been implemented by other compames.
The Petitioner also provided information regarding the economic impact of his employer and the economic benefits of thel !industry as a whole.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's The Petitioner makes a number of general assertions such as he "is a primary contributor to" his employer's "ability to generate billions in economic benefits to the United States by way of job creation, built infrastructure, social responsibilit es etc." and "the outcome of his work on .. [his employer's] projects directly impacts the nation in1 21 revenue, exports, and taxes." As previously stated, however, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" ofhis work, not the importance or economic benefits ofhisindustry.Job creation or economic claims unsupported ThePetitionerdoesnotoffersufficientevidencetodemonstratethattheprospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, as opposed to theI las a whole or his employer, has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
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, we fmd the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and its projects to impact the industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.No broader implications shown Nor has he shown that the particular work he Jroposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in thel industry or the engineering field, rather than just affecting projects involving his company, or otherwise has broader implications p. 5 forhisfield. Forallthesereasons,thePetitioner'sproposedworkdoesnotmeetthefirstprongofthe Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his 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 the remaining issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision ofwhich is unnecessary to the results they reach");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).
Conclusion
AsthePetitionerhasnotmettherequisitefirstprongoftheDhanasaranalyticalframework,weconclude he has not established that he is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter ofdiscretion. Theappealwillbedismissedfortheabovestatedreasons,witheachconsideredasan independent and alternate basis for the decision.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.