The Petitioner, a researcher, 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. § 1153(b )(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 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 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof 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 of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, they must then demonstrate 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.
Id.
National Interest Waiver
The Petitioner proposes to obtain a position as a researcher in the research and development sector of the following fields; the Petitioner asserted he plans to "develop state-of-the-art biomedical instruments in order to create accurate and efficient technologies that improve patient outcomes" and also pursue "augmentation of technology in ECMO, the development and deployment of a novel sensor capable of swiftly detecting a range of hazardous bacteria... as well as an exploration of automation techniques, specifically with regards to cybersecurity in the context of connected autonomous vehicles."
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first prong of framework for adjudicating national interest waivers, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. Id. at 889.
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 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.
In response to the initial evidence submitted by the Petitioner, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE). In part, the Director noted the expert opinion letters contained in the record do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor in the United States or demonstrate that such endeavor would have potential prospective effects that rise to the level of national importance. The Director also found the submitted articles and industry reports to constitute background information that, similarly, do not address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the United States. In the denial decision, the Director reiterated that both the articles and industry reports previously submitted and subsequently submitted in response to the RFE provided useful background information related to the "healthcare worker challenge and shortage, surgical errors, COVID-19 guidance, and government identified critical and emerging technologies and established the need to reduce healthcare worker burnout and staff shortage and the importance to mitigate surgical errors and prevent disease exposures," and established the general importance of the cybersecurity industry and electrical engineering fields.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's However, these documents were again not found to address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or demonstrate how this endeavor would mitigate the concerns raised in p. 3 those documents at a level commensurate with national importance. Overall, the Director found that the Petitioner did not submit additional evidence that addressed the deficiencies noted by the Director in the RFE.
On appeal, Petitioner's counsel asserts the Director erred by employing a standard of proof that exceeds the appropriate preponderance of the evidence standard and failed to consider all relevant evidence. Specifically, counsel asserts that under Dhanasar, the submitted articles and industry reports, even if not related to his specific proposed endeavor, are relevant to determining national importance. Counsel also asserts the Petitioner demonstrated national importance by submitting a clear statement of his proposed endeavor, including the three projects he intends to pursue, and provided evidence highlighting the importance of specific fields directly implicated by his endeavor. However, the Director explicitly considered and weighed the Petitioner's articles, industry reports, and personal statement in analyzing the first Dhanasar prong. As stated above, the Director indicated the submitted articles and industry reports provided useful background information, in part for identifying relevant fields of critical and emerging technologies. The Director also directly cited the Petitioner's personal statements, in his initial filing and RFE response, in identifying the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. As such, our review of the record reflects the Director considered the relevant evidence under the appropriate preponderance of the evidence standard. While the Director found the Petitioner's evidence established the importance of general fields related to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the Director also determined the Petitioner did not explain or provide evidence demonstrating the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work but on the "specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
We concur with the Director that the evidence of record does not detail and establish how exactly the Petitioner's proposed research will result in broader implications for his field.No broader implications shown As stated, on appeal, the Petitioner's counsel generally asserts the proposed endeavor "is focused on advancing biomedical instrumentation, cybersecurity in healthcare and [ the Internet of Things] and fortifying Industrial Control Systems (ICS)" and states "[t]his initiative aims to address critical gaps in technology, especially during emergency situations like the COVID-19 pandemic." We note the assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence.Claims not backed by documents Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) ( citing Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Overall, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain his particular proposed innovations or how they will advance or have broader implications in the field, at a level reaching national implications. The record also does not otherwise establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have substantial positive economic effects; the Petitioner does not make any related assertions or provide any related evidence.Job creation or economic claims unsupported As such, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information to establish his proposed endeavor is nationally important. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied prong one of the Dhanasar framework to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver.
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs
As our finding on this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve his arguments relating to the Director's adverse determinations of her eligibility under the p. 4 second and third prongs ofthe Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ( stating that "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 of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.