The Petitioner, a chief executive officer (CEO), seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual ofexceptional ability. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he 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 I&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 that 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, 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 of the 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 proposes to work in the United States as a CEO of _____________ The The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus 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 ofhis proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and that he is well-positioned to advance it. The Director determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director's decision is flawed and was not based on the actual evidence presented. The Petitioner also asserts that the Director overlooked key pieces of information, failed to properly weight the evidence, dismissed relevant details, and misinterpreted the facts. The Petitioner maintains that the evidence provided in support ofthe petition and in response to the Director's request for evidence unequivocally demonstrates his proposed endeavor's substantial merit and national importance.
While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed the record and have considered the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver. The Petitioner seeks to expand his company, which provides artificial intelligence (AI) enabled customer experience software, by implementing it in medium to large organizations both in the U.S. and globally. The Petitioner explains that he intends to partner with certified distributors and consultants to deliver innovative AI capabilities, boost customer engagement, and provide exceptional return on investment. The Petitioner also plans to relocate his company from Israel to the U.S. and "develop an innovation center" inl I Ohio. The record includes a personal statement, recommendation letters from different individuals including Congressman Greg Landsman, as well as industry reports and articles.
The Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor will significantly impact U.S. national interests by advancing valuable technology and driving economic growth in an economically depressed area. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and 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. Here, the Petitioner asserts that both his innovation center and company will be established in I IOhio, which the Petitioner identifies as an economically depressed region. However, the Petitioner also mentions! I Ohio as the location for his innovation center, creating inconsistency in his claims. The Petitioner nonetheless has not provided sufficient evidence or detailed information to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor will bring substantial economic benefit to these areas that would rise to the level of national importance.Job creation or economic claims unsupported The Petitioner emphasizes the significance ofhis plans to collaborate with companies such as ___ andl Ito launch an open banking platform. He underscores the company's success in Israel, noting a profit of over $4 million and contends that relocating the company to the United States will generate millions in tax revenues and employment. The Petitioner also urges consideration of Congressman Landsman's letter that highlights the importance of the artificial intelligence and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Although we acknowledge the Petitioner's evidence and assertions, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative ofnational importance.No broader implications shown 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 establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's impact will be nationally important. p. 4 The Petitioner discusses his extensive expertise in providing consulting services and AI and software development, as well as his ability to work with large companies. He positions himself as a highly skilled professional in driving innovation and claims that he enjoys support from local community stakeholders in Ohio who commend his "extraordinary abilities" in business and technology. Although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context ofthe first Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner's professional experience is generally material to Dhanasar's second prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance.Proposed endeavor too vague See id. at 888-91. The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself, not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must establish that his specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. The Petitioner however has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States. While the Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor has the potential to affect the U.S. national interest, the record does not support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those assertions. 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 his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his undertaking has implications beyond the companies and clients he elects to work with to impact the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his 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. 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 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 his 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 requisite first prong ofthe 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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.