The Petitioner, an electrical engineering consultant seeking to enhance U.S. energy reliability and resilience, requests classification under the employment-based, second-preference (EB-2) immigrant visa category and a waiver of the category's job-offer requirement. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has discretion to excuse job offers in this category - and thus the need for certifications from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) - if petitioners demonstrate that waivers of these U.S.-worker job protections would be "in the national interest." Id.
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition. SCOPS found the Petitioner eligible for EB-2 classification but concluded that he did not demonstrate that waiving the requested category's joboffer requirement would serve the national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that - in finding that his proposed endeavor lacked "national importance" and that, on balance, a waiver would not benefit the United States - SCOPS overlooked evidence.
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010).
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christa 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015), we agree with SCOPS that insufficient evidence supports the claimed national importance of his proposed endeavor. We will therefore dismiss the appeal.
Law
To establish eligibility for national interest waivers, pet1t10ners must first demonstrate their qualifications for the EB-2 category, either as members ofthe professions holding "advanced degrees" or their equivalents, or as aliens of "exceptional ability" in the sciences, arts, or business. See section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. To protect jobs for U.S. workers, this immigrant visa category generally requires prospective U.S. employers to offer aliens work and to obtain DOL certifications to permanently employ them in the country. See section 212(a)(5)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D). Petitioners may avoid the job-offer and labor-certification requirements by demonstrating that waivers of the U.S.-worker protections would be "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act.
Neither the Act nor regulations define the term "national interest." So, to adjudicate these waiver requests, we have established a framework. If otherwise qualified as advanced degree professionals or aliens ofexceptional ability, petitioners may warrant waivers ofthe job-offer and labor-certification requirements by demonstrating that:
- Their proposed U.S. work has "substantial merit" and "national importance;"
- They are "well positioned" to advance their intended endeavors; and
- On balance, waivers of the job-offer and labor certification requirements would benefit the United States.
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889-91 (AAO 2016); see generalZv 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(5)(D)(l), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual.
Analysis
A. The Petitioner and His Proposed Endeavor
The record shows that universities in the Petitioner's home country of Ecuador awarded him a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and a master's degree in business administration. He worked about 20 years for an electromechanical engineering company in Ecuador, first as an engineer and most recently as a project director.
Now in the United States, the Petitioner proposes to start his own company here and work as an electrical engineering consultant. He states that he would consult on planning and implementation of microgrid 1 projects, guide underserved communities in installing microgrids and renewable energy systems, and offer advice on establishing electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. He would also advise on energy efficiency in residential, commercial, and industrial construction projects, incorporating renewable energy sources, and conducting energy audits to identify areas for improvement and help clients obtain clean energy certifications.
The record supports SCOPS' findings that:
- The Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; and
- His proposed endeavor has substantial merit.
We will next review SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate his proposed endeavor's national importance.
B. National Importance
When determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, USCIS must focus on the particular venture, specifically on its "potential prospective impact." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. "An undertaking may have national importance, for example, because it has national or 1 The record indicates that microgrids are localized independent self-sufficient energy systems that often run on renewable resources. p. 3 even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. Also, "[ 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.
Ultimately, if the evidence ofrecord demonstrates that the person's proposed endeavor has the significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, or to contribute to the advancement of a valuable technology or field of study, it may rise to the level of national importance.
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3).
The Petitioner contended that his proposed endeavor would: enhance U.S. energy resilience; support critical infrastructure; align with national security goals and White House initiatives; promote economic growth; advance sustainability initiatives; foster equality in energy access; develop intelligent microgrid technologies; and expand infrastructure for EV charging.
SCOPS, however, found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his U.S. company's services would extend beyond its customers to have national implications. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3) ("Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance.") SCOPS stated: "The issue is not whether an organization or client would benefit from the endeavor, but whether the endeavor has broad implications with substantial positive effects." On appeal, the Petitioner contends that USCIS overlooked "detailed evidence showing that my proposed endeavor ... is not limited to benefiting individual clients, but is specifically designed and implemented to impact, modernize, and strengthen the resilience of the U.S. national energy system." He states that his endeavor's "effects are substantial and measurable at the national level" and that a single project involving the installation of 500 miles of isolated aerial power lines could create up to 9,000 jobs.
The record, however, lacks evidence that the Petitioner's U.S. company would likely work on a project installing 500 miles of isolated aerial power lines or one otherwise generating up to 9,000 jobs. Also, the record contains conflicting figures regarding the number ofjobs his Ecuadoran projects generated. A letter from the director of a business school at an Ecuadoran university states that the Petitioner led a 2015 highway electrification project in Ecuador that created more than 11,000 jobs. But the letter lacks details about the project and does not state the basis of the director's knowledge.Support letters generic or unsupported Also, a letter from the owner ofan Ecuadoran real estate development company who participated with the Petitioner on several projects indicates that the Petitioner's undertakings created substantially less jobs. The letter states: "He has been the manager of the creation of more than 350 jobs." The differing jobcreation figures regarding the Petitioner's past projects cast doubt on his claim that a single project in his new endeavor could generate 9,000 jobs. See Matter of Ho, 19 T&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies).
The Petitioner maintains that "[ m ]y proposed endeavor goes far beyond the immediate clients, as I have already accomplished at the national level in my home country, Ecuador." He states that recommendation letters on his behalf and examples of his projects in Ecuador demonstrate that his proposed "model is scalable and has a proven track record of national impact."
The record, however, does not demonstrate that any of the Petitioner's past projects in Ecuador had national implications. Certifications confirm the completions and prices of many projects. But they do not describe the projects in detail or explain their purported national significance. Recommendation letters list projects on which he worked and briefly describe them. But the letters do not specifically explain the projects' claimed national implications.
The Petitioner argues that his U.S. company's proposed services would have national scope and broad applicability. He states: "My proposed endeavor does not offer personalized solutions limited to a single client but rather models and technologies designed for systemic and scalable application across the entire national grid." He states that his company would "implement isolated aerial distribution networks and advanced microgrids, solutions expressly designed to modernize the U.S. electrical infrastructure in a manner that is replicable across multiple jurisdictions, industries, and geographic regions; in other words, it is inherently community-based." He states:
By their very nature and design, these solutions are not intended to benefit specific individuals, nor is it possible to select who will or will not be impacted. They are not ad hoc customizations for a single client. Their implementation transforms the infrastructure and resilience ofentire systems, such that the benefits, in terms ofaccess, reliability, and modernization of electric service, are necessarily collective and extend to all populations served by the corresponding grid.
We acknowledge that a single microgrid can provide energy to many people and organizations, such as a community. But the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed company would install enough microgrids in the United States to have a national impact. For example, his initial business plan estimated sales of $300,000 in the first year and $338,000 in the fifth year. Those figures do not indicate that the company's services would grow to have national implications. In response to SCOPS' request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a new business plan, estimating total revenues of $769,000 in the first year and $1,934,451 in the fifth year. The Petitioner has not explained why the business's revenue estimates changed. But, even ifwe accept the higher estimates, he has not explained how a business that generates less than $2 million in annual revenues would substantially affect the U.S. energy market.
In Dhanasar, we found that a proposal to teach courses in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) at a U.S. university had substantial merit. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. But we concluded that the plan lacked national importance because "the record does not indicate by a preponderance ofthe evidence that the petitioner would be engaged in activities that would impact the field of STEM education more broadly." Id. Similarly, the Petitioner's proposed electrical engineering consultancy has substantial merit. But, as in Dhanasar, he has not demonstrated that his proposed business would have broad enough effects to be nationally important.
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has national importance. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial.
C. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs
To obtain a national interest waiver, a petitioner must satisfy all three prongs ofour Dhanasar analysis. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Because the Petitioner did not demonstrate the claimed national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong, we need not determine whether he met the remaining two prongs. We will therefore reserve review of whether he demonstrated that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and that, all things considered, a waiver would benefit the United States. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has national importance. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
NOTICE: This is the final decision in this matter. A motion's filing would not postpone the decision's effect. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iv). Aliens who are unlawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may receive Forms I-862, Notices to Appear, placing them in removal proceedings. See section 240 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. Removal proceedings may result in an alien's removal from the United States and ineligibility for future U.S. visas or other immigration benefits.