The Petitioner, a chemical engineer, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, as well as a national interest waiver of the 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). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 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 beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish the substantial merit or national importance of the proposed endeavor or that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance it. Additionally, the Director found that the evidence did not establish 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 the Director erred in denying the petition.
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Legalframework
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification (emphasis added), 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. -(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 of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interestwaiver.... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 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.
Section 101 (a)(32) ofthe Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries."
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions:
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or aforeign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree.
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business.
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation.
In addition, the regulation at8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii).
Furthermore, 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 MatterofDhanasar,26l&NDec.884(AAO2016). Inannouncingthisnewframework,wevacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted if the petitioner demonstrates: (1)thattheforeignnational'sproposedendeavorhasbothsubstantialmeritandnational importance; (2) that the foreign national 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 of ajob offer and thus of a labor certification. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs.
Analysis
A Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree In order to show that a petitioner holds aqualifying advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied by"[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Alternatively, a petitioner may present "[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer(s) showing that the [individual] has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B).
In his initial filing, the Petitionersubmitted a copy of his bachelorof chemical engineering diploma issued by a Venezuelan university in December 2000. Although the Petitioner indicated on his Form ETA 750 Part B that he studied in his bachelor's degree program from 1992 to 2000, he did not provide any academic transcripts to susbtantiate the duration or course content of his studies. We reviewed th~ evaluation from theI ICorporation, which contains the opinion of evaluator! I concerningtheequivalencyofthePetitioner'sforeigneducationandworkexperience. Initially,wenote that the evaluation appears to have been prepared for a different petitioner as it states that the Petitioner has experience in "sports science, sailing, sports management, and related areas," which is entirely incongruent with the record. We further question whether the evaluation was prepared for another petitioner based upon the evaluator's use o f regulatory language related to a different employment-based classification, that of H-1B nonimmigrants. Finally, the evaluation contains temp lated language found in numerous other evaluations submitted on behalf of unrelated petitioners, which suggests a lack of independentanalysisofthePetitioner'sspecificqualifications. AsUSCISdoesnotacceptequivalency evaluations of experience, we focus on the academic portion of the evaluation only.
The evaluator initially concluded that the mere completion of a foreign bachelor's degree in chemical engineering provides a sufficient basis for the conclusion that it is the equivalent of aU.S. bachelor's degree in chemical engineering. Subsequently, the evaluator stated that he based his conclusion on the reputation of the foreign university, the number of years of coursework, the nature of the coursework, the p. 4 gradesattained,andthehoursofacademicwork. Althoughtheevaluatorlistedtheinformationthathe relied upon, he offered little analysis to support the conclusions. We do not know, for example, how the Petitioner's course work and academic hours actually compare to a U.S. education. Furthermore, the evaluatorreferencesinformationnotcontainedintherecord. BecausethePetitionerhasnotsubmitted evidence of his courses, grades, and academic hours, we are unable to independently examine the basis for the evaluator's conclusions. We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign education as an advisory opinion. Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we may discount or give less weight to that evaluation. Id. Here, we question the credibility of the evaluation because it contains language that appears unrelated to the Petitioner and his immigrant classification, in addition to conclusory statements not supported by analysis or other corroborating evidence in the record. Although the Director appeared to accept the Petitioner's foreign education as the equivalent o f a U.S bachelor's degree, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met his burden in this regard.
The Director issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) which notified the Petitioner that the evidence did not establish five years of progressive, post-baccelaureate employment experience as well as clarified what specific evidence could establish this element of the advance degree professional classification.Five years of progressive experience not documented As part of his NOID response, the Petitioner provided numerous letters from supervisors and colleagues with irl Ithe Petitioner's current and longstanding employer. Although these letters describe the Petitioner's work and his various position titles throughout the years, the Director observed that the letters did not establish how the Petitioner's work was progressive in nature.
In addition, most o f the letters are from the Petitioner's supervisors and colleagues, rather than from a representative authorized to make assertions concerning the durationandnatureofthe Petitioner's official employment history with I the Petitioner's role and experience while he worked directly alongside them, their assertions of the Petitioner's employment in other capacities, such as in different countries or with different subsidiaries or teams, are of little value as it cannot be determined how they would have direct knowledge of the Petitioner's employment dates and work experience. To illustrate, his former supervisors and colleagues do not appear to hold roles that would permit them access to the Petitioner's official! I personnel records. Although! Ia manager inl Ilisted the Petitioner's training completions, he did not demonstrate knowledge of the Petitioner's employment dates and work experience, nor did he provide analysis as to how the training represents progressively responsible work. Tofu rther illustrate, the Petitionersu bmitted a letter from a retired Itechnical manager who, as a formerl Iemployee, does not demonstrate that she has the current capacity to make official assertions on behalf of her former employer.
While the record contains a letter from HR Advisor! lwho appears to possess the authority and knowledge to provide credible information concerning the dates ofthe Petitioner's employment at Ithe letter does not contain information on the Petitioner's work experience or training such thattheprogressivenatureofthePetitioner'spost-baccalaureateworkmaybeestbalished. Theletter states that the Petitioner is a current employee, and it also contains his employment start date and the title of his current position, but it does not contain a specific description of the duties performed by the Petitioner or of the training received such that the progressive nature of the Petitioner's work can be established. We acknowledge the Petitioner's argument on appeal that his increased salary earnings over O
IAlthough the colleagues and supervisors may be familiar with p. 5 the years are evidence of the progressive nature of his work; however the record does not contain sufficientcorroboratingevidenceregardingthePetitioner'ssalaryovertheyears. Evenifwehadsuch documentation, this evidence would still be insufficient in establishing how the Petitioner's wotk, as opposed to his earnings, is progressive in nature. While we acknowledge that the evidence demonstrates continuous work, it is insufficient to simply submit documents without demonstrating how the work is actually progressive.
Due to these evidentiary deficiencies, the record does not persuasively establish that the Petitioner is a member of the professions with an advanced degree. Further, the Petitioner has not asserted his eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner meets the regulatory criteria for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or that he is an individual of exceptional ability.Exceptional ability not established
B. National Importance
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification, the issue of the national interest waiver is moot. The waiver is available only to foreign workers who othetwise qualify for classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. However, because the Director made additional eligibilityfindings and the Petitioner alleges error in the Director's decision, we will provide further analysis using the Dhanasar framework. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one.
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner argues thatthe Director did not properly analyze the Petitioner's case in comparison to the standard set by Dhanasar. Regarding the national importance standard specifically, the Petitioner argues that the Director must analyze the impact and national importance o f his proposed endeavor in comparison to the impact and national importance o f Dr. Dhanasar's proposed endeavor. The Petitioner asserts that the Director is legally required to compare the impact of the Petitioner with that of Dr. Dhanasar and cites to the concept of precedent decisions in support. We acknowledge that Dhanasar is a precedent decision and further acknowledge the concept of precedent decisions and their controlling nature; however, the Petitioner has cited to no legal authority for a one-to-one comparison of two petitioners operating in vastly different fields of endeavor. Dhanasar establishes an analytical framework with which to examine national interest waiver cases, but it does mandate or even suggest that a side-by-side comparison of individual petitioners and endeavors is required. The Petitioner misunderstands the nature of precedential decisions when he concludes that approvals are required for any petitioner with more impact than Dr. Dhanasar. While we utilize the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar, the record contains only the Petitioner's evidence, facts, field of endeavor, and explanations of the proposed scope of work, not Dr. Dhanasar's. Despite counsel's insistence that a differentstandard be applied, the Petitioner always bears the burden toestablishhisowneligibilitybyapreponderanceoftheevidence. SeeMatterofChawathe,25l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010).
The Petitioner provided significant information concerning his past work, such as with I ~ - - - - ~ technologies, but offered little information concerning the proposed endeavor. He provided information to suggest that he would research, such as by claiming to be a top researcher, that the continued dissemination of his work would benefit the nation, and that his paystubs evidence that he has support for his ongoing research, but he did not directly state that his proposed endeavor involves research activities p. 6 or what his future research topics would be. Although the Form 1-140 requests that the Petitioner provide his proposed employment job title and duty description, he did not complete this section of the form. From the initial filing, the Petitioner's most direct statement concerning his proposed endeavor was fuat he "seeks employment in the field ofAdvanced Chemical Engineering." Accordingly, the Director issued a NOID which notified the Petitioner oftheevidentiary deficiencies in the record concerning his proposed endeavor as well as that the evidence did not establish its substantial merit or national importance.
In response, the Petitioner stated that he will "continue working in the field of Advanced Chemical Engineering,____ _ _ _ _ _ ___,' He then continued to reference his past and current work wifuout further defining his proposed endeavorexceptto add that he intends to "remain workingforl I I I Although we acknowledge his claim that he currently works onl technologies, procedures, and processes and that he designs and produces technical guides for large-scale projects,thePetitionerdidnotdirectlystatewhathisfutureworkwouldinvolve. Evenifwewereto assume that the Petitioner's current wotk will alsl comprir his proposed endeavor, we would not have sufficient information concerning which specific technologies he would work with or which specific large-scale projects his endeavor will involve. The record contains little other direct evidence of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.
I
The Petitioner's retired colleague,! Ia former resource manager for,___ _ _ _ _ _ ___, I Iprovided additional indirect mforrnatlon concerning the Petitioner's endeavor in his letter of support. Here, the additional information concerning the endeavor comes only secondhand, as the Petitioner himself has not claimed his proposed endeavor involves the specific activities identified i n D I Iletter. According tJ Ithe Petitioner's endeavor "is the development o T e w prol&ses and techniques for the application of novel,____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,Technology." then launched into an explanation o f the Petitioner's current and past work without further explanation offue Petitioner'sproposedendeavor. Furtherconfusingmatters,! IindicatedthatthePetitioner'swotk involves teaching younger engineers, whichl lcited as a reason for the national importance of the Petitioner's work. As such, it appears that the proposed endeavor may involve teaching. Another letter submitted with the NOID response includes the opinion ofl I, a I I professional, who discussed the benefits of research and development to the United States. Although the letter does not directly claim that the Petitioner will perform research, it is not apparent wh~ wou Id engage in such a discussion i f the Petitioner's activities did not involve research. To summarize the direct and indirect evidence concerning the proposed endeavor, it appears as though the Petitioner will: (1) seek employment as a chemical engineer; (2) continue his current employment with I 1(3) develop new processes and techniques for the application of novell I I
The Director determined that that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit or national importance. We agree. As stated in the Director's decision, the record contains insufficient evidence to suggest that the Petitioner's proposal to seek or continue employment in chemical engineering holds substantial merit. On appeal, the Petitioner alleges legal error in the Director's determination concerning substantial merit, but he does not provide legal support for such a claim. Instead, the Petitioner compares immigration adjudications under previous and current !technology; and (4) may possibly teach and research. In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Basedontheinformationprovided,thePetitionerhasnotclearlyidentifiedhisproposedendeavor.
I p. 7 presidential administrations, as well as observes that in the history of national interest waivers, no field hasbeendeterminedtobewithoutsubstantialmerit. AstheDirectornoted,thePetitionerconfusesthe field,whichmayhavesubstantialmerit,withthesubstantialmeritoftheproposedendeavor. Here,the proposed endeavor has not been clearly defined nor has the Petitioner submitted persuasive evidence to support a finding of substantial merit. The Petitioner bears the burden to affirmatively establish eligibility under the Dhansar framework, of which substantial merit is one piece.
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. The record does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor, to the extent that it has been explained, will extend beyond the Petitioner's employer and clients or that the Petitioner's operntions broadly impact the field o f chemical engineering or thel Iindustry at a level commensurate with national importance. Similarly, 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. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 893. The Petitioner argued that thel Iindustry impacts the U.S. economy and advances in this field are of immense significance. However, as previously explained above as well as in the Director's decision, the field or industry is not the subject of th is analysis, but rather the proposed endeavor. 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 foreignnationalproposestoundertake." Id.at889.
In Dhanasar, we frniher 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. The Petitioner has not explained what specific benefits his proposed endeavor will add, nor has he explained what "advances" his proposed endeavor will make in the industry. The Petitioner submitted evidence of reports he authored or petiormed testing for and studies he facilitated, but we have little indication that these documents were disseminated to anyone outside Ior beyondl Iown projects. For instance, the Petitioner pointed out his influence in China, but in examining the relevant email chain, the guidance the Petitioner provided was to another! Iemployee located in China. Even if evidence of dissemination was provided, we would still find this evidence insufficient because dissemination alone would not establish the impact ofthePetitioner'sworkinthefieldoronthenation. Wedonotknow,forexample,ifotherchemical engineers in thel Iindustry are aware of this work or whether this work has positively influenced other companies. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded thatthe Petitioner'sworkin theproposedendeavor wouldhaveimpactthatextendsbeyondhiscurrentemployer. Similarly,theclaimsof"$$$millionsof dollarsofimpactintherealworld!"havenotbeensubstantiated. Forinstance,therecordcontainsno studies, analysis, articles, or statistics linking the Petitioner's work to millions of dollars of impactor any national economic benefits. As such, we have little basis to concludethatthePetitioner's wmkhas created millions of dollars of impact.
The Petitioner's recommendation letters contain information on his past work and his achievements for I Ibut offer little information concerning his future proposed endeavor. Although the letters contain information on how the Petitioner's work has positively impacted his employer and its clients, the authors do not persuasively address or provide support for a finding that the Petitioner's future wmk willbroadlyimpactthefield. Additionally,theauthorspraisethePetitioner'sexperience,personaland professional achievements within! land his expertise. In general, both the Petitioner and p. 8 these authors confuse the Petitioner's merit with the merit o f the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's expertise relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposedendeavortotheforeignnational." Id.at890. Theissuehereiswhetherthespecificendeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has substantial merit and national importance under Dhanasar's first prong.
Finally, the Petitioner submitted evidence of co-authorship on approximatelyfour articles, the most recent ofwhichappearstohavebeenpublishedin2014,fouryearspriortothefilingoftheinstantpetition. Four co-authored articles spanning an approximately twenty-year career as a chemical engineer suggests that thePetitioner'sworkisnotprimarilyfocusedonwritingandpublishing. Furthermore,thecitationrecord, which consist of a collective five citations, does not suggest an influence in the field commensurate with national importance. Although the Petitioner received an acknowledgement for his contribution to anotherwriter'sarticle,suchanacknowledgementisnotacitationtothePetitioner'swork. Similarly,an acknowledgement of the Petitioner in someone else's patent is not indicative of how the Petitioner's work's influences or impacts in the field. Based upon the evidence provided, the Petitioner's past publicationandcitationhistorydoesnotsuggestthathisproposedendeavor, ifitincludesresearch,would have an impact that rises to the level of national importance.
Because the documentation in the record does not establish that the Petitioner meets the requirements of the underlying classification nor does it establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit or national importance as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitionerhasnotdemonstratedeligibilityforanationalinterestwaiver. Furtheranalysisofhiseligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose.
Ill. CONCLUSION
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2){A) of the Act. In addition, the evidence has not shown that the proposed endeavor is of substantial merit or national importance. As such, he has not established that a waiver of the job offer and labor certification would be in the national interest of the United States.No interest from users, customers or investors Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 l&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013).
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.