The Petitioner, an aviation pilot, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2).
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not established that the Petitioner qualified for classification as an individual of exceptional ability and that a discretionary 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.
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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Because this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a United States employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest.
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A United States bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence:
(A) An official academic record showing that the [ noncitizen] has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability;
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the [ noncitizen] has at least ten years offull-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought;
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation;
(D) Evidence that the [ noncitizen] has commanded a salary, or other renumeration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability;
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or (F) Evidence ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides, "If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility."
Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself: establish eligibility for this classification. 1 If a petitioner does so, we will then consider the totality of the material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows that the petitioner is recognized as having a degree ofexpertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, iffulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context ofthe totality ofthe evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 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," we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 1 USCIS has confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of exceptional ability. 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. p. 3 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,2 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category ifthe petitioner demonstrates that (1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the noncitizen 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 ofa job offer and thus ofa labor certification.
Analysis
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as an airline pilot. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that he qualified as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director determined that although the Petitioner met at least three out of six criteria, the record lacked evidence that the Petitioner's degree of expertise 1s significantly above that which is ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. A. Individual of Exceptional AbilityExceptional ability not established
The Director considered the totality ofthe evidence presented in a final merits determination and found that the Petitioner, had not demonstrated by a preponderance ofthe evidence that he possesses a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director misapplied the law and applied a stricter standard of proof than required. The Petitioner states that he submitted evidence that met all six evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The Petitioner farther contends that because the Director did not reference the final merits analysis in the request for evidence (RFE), he was not provided an opportunity to address the shortcomings the Director identified. Though the Petitioner is correct, we find the error to have been a harmless one because, as will be discussed, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated his proposed endeavor's national importance under the Dhanasar analytical framework's first prong by a preponderance of the evidence.
Further investigation and analysis of the Petitioner's categorical eligibility for EB-2 classification by remanding this matter so that the Director can issue an RFE exploring a final merits determination would therefore serve no legal purpose. 3 The resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, under the Dhanasar analytical framework are dispositive of this appeal. For that reason, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested EB-2 category. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal in removal proceedings where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief).
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the noncitizen 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. The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is "piloting, flight instructing and flight training through Crew Resource Management and Human Factor instruction for regional and charter airlines." The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established that the proposed endeavor is of national importance.
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director neglected crucial documents demonstrating various benefits to the United States that would result directly from the Petitioner's endeavor. The Petitioner argues that the record's support letters, industry expert opinion letter, business plan, and industry reports reveal the endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. For example, the Petitioner asserts that the record demonstrates that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, generate substantial economic effects, and address a matter that a government entity has deemed important or is the subject of national initiatives.
The expert opinion letter's author emphasizes the Petitioner's extensive experience in leadership, safety and operations of flights, and flights instructions and training. The author farther highlights the demand for and significance of the Petitioner's work in the aviation field and states that the Petitioner possesses proven expertise in aeronautics, safety management, and flights instructions and training. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. While the Petitioner's business plan reflects his intention to join a commercial airline and aim to address gaps in the aviation industry by providing training and mentorship to new pilots, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact ofhis proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.Plan or projections not corroborated 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. Id. at 893.
Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence he submitted on appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his customers and employers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance.
The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself, not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must establish that his specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. The Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States.Job creation or economic claims unsupported While the Petitioner claims that his endeavor will yield extensive benefits for the U.S. economy and will enhance the overall safety of the country's airline support through the provision of safe transportation to passengers, he has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or p. 5 national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on the aviation industry's importance and the shortage of pilots in the United States as evidence of his endeavor's importance. We acknowledge that the Petitioner is a qualified pilot; however, that fact alone is insufficient to establish the national importance of the endeavor proposed here. As previously mentioned, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance ofthe industry or profession in which the individual will work. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Although the Petitioner states his commitment to easing the challenges arising from the shortage of pilots, he has not sufficiently explained how he will positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance.Relied on a labor shortage It is also important to note that the shortage of pilots, as well as aviation instructors, does not render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.
The Petitioner maintains that he is an experienced pilot with over 13 years in the field and has worked for several significant companies. He highlights the letters of recommendation submitted from his colleagues and independent experts offering assessments of his career's trajectory and the recognition he has garnered. Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's experience and skill set, and his desire to "contribute to the formation of pilots in the U.S. by working as a flight instructor and trainer," the Petitioner must demonstrate his proposed endeavor offers benefits which extend beyond his community to impact the aviation industry more broadly. Moreover, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor of working as a commercial airline pilot rather than the importance of the national initiatives and interests, industries, or fields. He has not done so.
It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.No broader implications shown The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010).
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.