The Petitioner, a bioengineer, prosthetics researcher, and entrepreneur 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. 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 although the Petitioner established her eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, she did not show that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus labor certification, would be in the national interest. This matter is now before us on appeal, which we review de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 53 7, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). The Petitioner bears the burden of proof and must establish her eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To be eligible for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as an advanced degree professional or an individual ofexceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(A), (B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(l). Ifa petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate, pursuant to section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, that they warrant a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest" by satisfying all three prongs as set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), which states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner establishes that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) they are well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, waiving the job offer and thus labor certification requirements would benefit the United States. Id.
Eb-2 Classification
As a preliminary matter, to establish that the Petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree for EB-2 classification purposes, her petition must be accompanied by an official academic record evidencing a U.S. advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). "Advanced degree" means a U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a baccalaureate. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. 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. Id. The Petitioner therefore may alternatively establish that she holds an advanced degree for purposes of EB-2 classification by presenting an official academic record evidencing a U.S. baccalaureate or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer( s) showing at least five years of progressive post-degree experience in the specialty. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l).
The Petitioner has not established that she has a U.S. or foreign equivalent advanced degree, or that she has a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree (followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty), as she claims.Five years of progressive experience not documented We therefore withdraw the Director's determination to the contrary that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as "a member of the professions holding an advanced degree in Biomedical Engineering . . . followed by at least five years of progressive experience in field of specialty."2
As evidence ofa U.S. equivalent bachelor's degree, the Petitioner submitted copies oftwo Venezuelan "Degree Certificates" issued in November 2013 and December 2015, respectively. The 2013 certificate conferred "the title of Higher University Technician in Electromedicine" on the Petitioner; and the 2015 certificate conferred on her "the title of Biomedical Engineer." However, the two certificates do not indicate the type of degree she was awarded or specify the length of the academic programs. The Petitioner did not submit any underlying official academic record, such as transcript for each program, and did not provide an independent academic evaluation explaining and attesting to the claimed educational equivalency of each degree, compared to that of a U.S. bachelor's degree. The 2013 certificate listing the title of higher electromedicine technician indicates, consistent with the Petitioner's resume description of this title, that she obtained a technical degree, rather than a bachelor's degree; and her own assertion in a corresponding Form ETA-9089 she submitted also states it is an associate degree. The Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), which we consider a reliable source of information on foreign credential equivalencies, further consistently indicates that a "Higher Technician" degree represents a level ofeducation comparable to "2 to 3 years" ofuniversity study in the United States. 3 Although she generally states on her resume that she attended a university in Venezuela from 2009 to 2013 to obtain her technician title, the record does not contain any evidence that this technical degree is in fact equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, which generally requires four years of university-level education.Degree not shown to be a U.S. advanced degree equivalent See Matter ofShah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 2 Other than this conclusion, the Director provided no analysis as to the Petitioner's EB-2 classification eligibility. 3 See https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/credentials/venezuela (last accessed August 22, 2024). EDGE is a web-based resource for the evaluation offoreign educational credentials created by the American Association ofCollegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). AACRAO is a professional association of higher education admissions and registration professionals who represent academic institutions located in over 40 countries. p. 3 The 2015 certificate listing the title of biomedical engineer also does not establish that it is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. According to EDGE 4, a Venezuelan degree awarding a "Professional Title of ... Engineer" evidences a degree following completion of a "5 to 6 year" university program, a level of education comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Although the Petitioner was awarded "the title of Biomedical Engineer," the certificate does not indicate that she was specifically given a professional title ('Titulos Professionales") of engineer as EDGE indicates. The record does not include an official academic record showing the years of study completed for the degree, but reflects that the Petitioner's engineer title was awarded only two years after she obtained her 2013 technician title from the same university. Although her resume generally indicates that she spent a total of six years from 2009 to 2015 to obtain her engineer title, the record does not contain any evidence independently substantiating her claim that this degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Therefore, the Petitioner's degree certificates and her general assertion that they are a "dual bachelor's degree" do not establish that she has a foreign degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree for EB-2 classification purposes. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B); see also SnapNames.com, Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 (D. Or. 2006) (explaining that where the beneficiary is required to hold a bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent, a single degree is required and they cannot combine experience or education to supplement a three-year degree). 5 The Petitioner also claimed below that she completed an online master's program offered by ___________ in Spain. However, she did
did not meet the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), she necessarily cannot show she has met at least three of the six criteria as set forth in that provision, as required. Consequently, the Petitioner also has not established she is a person of exceptional ability for EB-2 classification purposes.
National Interest Waiver
Without first establishing his EB-2 classification eligibility, the Petitioner cannot qualify for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Even if we were to consider the merits of this waiver, we agree with the Director's ultimate decision denying it because the Petitioner's documentary evidence did not satisfy the first prong of the three-prong Dhanasar framework for adjudication of national interest waivers. The first prong, "substantial merit" and "national importance," focuses on the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake. 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.
The Director determined that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, she did not show that it has national importance and thus did not meet Dhanasar' s first prong. She alleges that the Director failed to consider all relevant evidence and apply the correct evidentiary standard. The Petitioner intends to work as a bioengineer and operate her own company that engages in sustainable prosthetics research and development in designing innovative devices that enhance mobility and sensory functions for individuals with limb loss or sensory impairments.
Under the applicable preponderance of the evidence standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality, including relevance and probative value, of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989).
In reasserting that her proposed endeavor has national importance, the Petitioner relies on her academic credentials and professional experience, as indicated in her resume, business plan, an expert letter, other support letters, as well as the same general industry reports she submitted below pertaining to the significance of the prosthetics industry. 7 She further reasserts that, given her background that proves her qualifications for the market and its high demands, her proposed business will have substantial positive economic and societal benefits. But the above referenced evidence focuses on her experience and skills and relates to Dhanasar' s second prong, which relates to whether an individual is well-positioned to advance a proposed endeavor and "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. For assessing the national importance of an endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong, we look to its "potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. Thus, as relevant here, we assess whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national or global implications in the field or industry in which she proposes to engage, rather than the importance of field or industry itself.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's Id. Here, as owner and primary investor of her company, the Petitioner proposes to lead it by utilizing her expertise on the latest technologies in designing prosthetics devices for all potential customers, including wounded U.S. veterans. But the Petitioner's evidence does not show that her claimed business and research methods and innovative products were or would be 7 She submits on appeal various unpublished decisions from this office. We are not bound by unpublished decisions as they are only applicable to individual cases for which they are issued. She does not otherwise submit any new evidence. p. 5 adopted by the industry, made any impact in the field, or otherwise have far-reaching implications. Further, the industry reports generally describe the industry's importance and do not relate to the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake.Proposed endeavor too vague Although we acknowledge the proposed work could have a positive impact on her business and career, she has not persuasively explained, and the record, including her business plan, does not demonstrate how her work would have the broader implications for the industry and U.S. economy as she claims, beyond her business and potential customers.No broader implications shown The record, for instance, does not show that the proposed endeavor would have "significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or "substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area," which may indicate national importance.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Although the business plan states that she will be the primary investor-owner of her company with an initial investment of $10,000 and additional funds upwards of $60,000, the record does not include any probative evidence corroborating this assertion, such as the availability and source of the funds and transaction records.Plan or projections not corroborated The Petitioner also does not specifically claim, and the record does not otherwise indicate, that her business would directly or indirectly benefit economically depressed areas. The business plan includes a "Personnel Plan" with general job descriptions for a CEO, consultants, research scientists and engineers, and administrative assistants. But she does not specifically claim, and the record, including the business plan, does not indicate, that she will hire any U.S. workers. The record also does not contain any evidence-based justification for the staffing descriptions included in the business plan, which is also devoid of any information on hiring criteria or process. Further, although the business plan includes five-year financial projections for certain limited categories, it includes no information on the number of potential employees or related expenses. The business plan nonetheless conjectures that her company in its fifth year of operation is projected to spend a total of about $589,000 in expenses, offset by its total revenue ofapproximately $933,000, ultimately resulting in a net profit of around $325,000. However, these projections lack corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate them, such as independent basis for the claimed net revenue, expenses, and the source of the projected income. The Petitioner's reliance on her business plan, aspirational assertions, support letters, and general industry articles, thus, do not establish a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic impact that may indicate national importance. While we acknowledge her desire to contribute to the U.S. prosthetics industry, she has not established with specific, probative evidence that her proposed endeavor will have broader implications in her field, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or have substantial positive economic or societal effects rising to the level of national importance. The Petitioner therefore has not met Dhanasar's national importance prong to establish her eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified grounds for denial, the Petitioner's inability to establish her eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification and satisfy Dhanasar's first prong as it relates to a national interest waiver, are dispositive of this appeal, we decline to reach the remaining appeal arguments as to the second and third prongs of the framework. See, e.g., INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to reach issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.