The Petitioner, a general manager and logistician in the field of delivery and transportation, 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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit, he had not established that his proposed endeavor is of national importance, or that, on balance, 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 ofthe evidence. Matter afChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter a/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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years ofprogressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
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 p. 2 that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. If a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree ofexpertise and will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States. Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act.
Ifa petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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) ofthe Act. 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,2 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.
Analysis
A. EB-2 Classification
SCOPS determined the Petitioner "meets the requirement for the requested classification" but did not provide an analysis of whether the Petitioner is eligible for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Because we are dismissing this appeal on the dispositive issue explained below, we reserve our review of SCOPS' conclusion regarding his eligibility for EB-2 classification. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The Petitioner explained that he established a delivery and transportation business, I I ~------~Ilocated in South Carolina. The Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor is to direct the company's operations as President and develop strategies and tactics for continuous business growth while overseeing the day-to-day operations. He noted that his endeavor is to "enhance the overall standard of delivery and trucking services in the U.S. by ensuring all freight and packages are safely and timely transported in a way that preserves its quality."
Upon review, for the reasons discussed below, we agree that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor in order to establish eligibility under the first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework. While we do not discuss every piece ofevidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one.
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with SCOPS' conclusion that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit as it falls within the range of areas of substantial merit, namely transportation, logistics, and entrepreneurialism. Id. However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish its national importance.
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that his proposed endeavor has national importance because his company operates in the U.S. transportation and logistics industry, which he describes as a "sector essential to the interstate movement of goods and materials that sustain the national economy." He further asserts that his company would create jobs and economic benefits extending beyond local operations. The Petitioner also states that his company completed "interstate emergency shipments" under FEMA coordination during a declared disaster and that his company "played a key role in maintaining international-domestic supply chain continuity" through the transportation of silicon metal critical for manufacturing.
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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. As it relates to the Petitioner's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of his business rather than the importance of the transportation and logistics industry. Further, "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. The broader implications of the proposed endeavor, national and/or international, can inform us of the proposed endeavor's national importance. That is not to say that the implications are viewed solely through a geographical lens. Broader implications can reach beyond a particular proposed endeavor's geographical locus and focus. The relevant inquiry is whether the broader implications apply beyond just narrowly conferring the proposed endeavor's benefit. And 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. While the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable transportation and logistics services for his clients, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the p. 4 prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Although the Petitioner contends that his endeavor will work in a "sector essential to the interstate movement of goods and materials that sustain the national economy," the Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation or information to show that his proposed endeavor will make an impact in the transportation and logistics industry. The Petitioner has provided little detail discussing, for example, how his services are distinguishable from those of other transportation companies, or how his work would accomplish the claimed objectives. Importantly, he also has not explained how any impact produced would be direct and significant enough to rise to a regional or nationally important level. Although his endeavor may benefit his potential clients, he has not established how his specific endeavor stands to impact the broader transportation and logistics field, region, or nation, or otherwise have implications rising to the level of national importance. Further, the record does not establish the Petitioner has plans to introduce novel methodologies or techniques that may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the field or industry. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact the transportation and logistics industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner discusses U.S. government initiatives that may support the expansion of transportation services. Although the Petitioner's work may be in an important field, he must still establish the specific proposed endeavor has national importance as it is presented in the Dhanasar framework. The proposed endeavor itself must still meet the level of prospective impact set forth in Dhanasar. We recognize the value and importance of transportation and logistics; however, working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Here, the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's Without sufficient documentary evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's broader impact on the industry, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.Proposed endeavor too vague
Finally, we agree with SCOPS' conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish that his endeavor "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area."Job creation or economic claims unsupported Id. While any increased business activity has the potential to positively impact the economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the activity resulting from his business would rise to the level of having regional or nationally important impacts. In the business plan, the Petitioner indicated that by the fifth year of operations he intends to have 29 employees and $1.6 million in tax contributions. However, the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections. In addition, the Petitioner does not elaborate on the 29 direct jobs he anticipates his company will create, such as the type ofjobs those would be, the breakdown of part-time versus full-time positions, and where they would be created. Even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were more than conjecture, they do not establish that the endeavor would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance, as the Petitioner has not explained how these proposed employment numbers and revenue will impact the area of intended operations, nor has he provided evidence that his business operations will impact an economically depressed area. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the record does p. 5 not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
C. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor and does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of his eligibility under the second and third prongs of 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").
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.
NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iv). Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 ofthe Act through the issuance of a Form 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.