The Petitioner, an industrial machinery mechanic, 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. § l 153(b )(2).
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that it would be beneficial to waive the requirements of a job offer. 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act.
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) 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.
Analysts
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the 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 agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first 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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. at 889.
The brief in response to the request for evidence (RFE) states that the Petitioner's business will focus on "the creation of fuel pellets from wood processing waste and the granulation of edible waste." The evidence provided does not demonstrate that this specific endeavor is of national importance. 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 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. 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. 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893.
Here, the Petitioner has not described how his pellet manufacturing will have a broader impact on the field beyond the individual clients he intends to sell to.No broader implications shown The Petitioner argues that his proposed work is nationally important because he will produce pellets at a lower cost. He further avers that fuel pellet production in general contributes to "sustainable resource management, waste reduction, and the development of a greener, more resilient energy system." Yet the Petitioner neglects to explain how his particular business's pellet production will impact the overall fuel pellet field at a nationally important level, beyond his customers.
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate national importance either. 2 The Petitioner provided informational articles on fuel pellets and engineering. These articles and reports are of little evidentiary value as they do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or how it would have broad implications in the fuel pellet field in a way that implicates national importance. The Petitioner also presented recommendation letters and documentation on the Petitioner's current employer and his work there. 3 The Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments and experiences, not the specific endeavor's potential impact in the fuel pellet field. Generally, this type ofevidence is more appropriate for the second prong when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
Moreover, he has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.Job creation or economic claims unsupported An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may have national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, however, the business plan does not adequately support its projections of job and revenue creation.Plan or projections not corroborated The Petitioner's business plan does not explain how its forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how its projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the business plan's financial projections. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably true, where the determination of truth is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See id. Here, the lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value of the business plan.
Even if we assumed all the projections in the business plan were accurate, the record lacks evidence demonstrating that its impact would be nationally important. The Petitioner argues that the proposed endeavor will have an economic impact on the level ofnational importance. Yet the Petitioner did not provide documentation to support these statements that the company will result in substantial economic growth on the level of national importance. The record does not illustrate how creating 14 jobs and generating the net profit as projected in the business plan, would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national importance. The Petitioner must support assertions with 2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 3 Following the initial petition, the Petitioner submitted supplemental evidence including an article and investor interest communications that originated after the petition's filing.Not eligible at the time of filing He also submitted other letters from potential business associates that were undated. A petitioner must meet all the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(I), ( 12). p. 4 relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has therefore not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Accordingly, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance.
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond his clients to affect the region or nation more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893.Proposed endeavor too vague He has not shown that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong ofthe Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive ofthe 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 "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 find that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.