The Petitioner, a civil engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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.
If a 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) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship p. 2 and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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.
Analysis
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
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.
The record reflects that the Petitioner intended to work in the United States as a civil engineer to direct the operations of his company, _____________ According to the Petitioner, he intended to "develop expert consulting and implementation services focused on providing assistance and progress to key industry sectors, thus positively impact[ing] both U.S. citizens and businesses." He planned to "utiliz[e] his expertise and acquired knowledge to provide consulting services in the areas of civil engineering, the construction sector, and laying of asphalt[,]" and "present a revolutionary solution in the area of sewage treatment." According to his business plan, he intended to "provide valuable expertise and advice on engineering projects, including a comprehensive analysis of structural and environmental factors to ensure safety and prevent contamination .... [ and] design[] systems that optimize the use of natural resources, while also considering budgetary constraints." In addition, the Petitioner claimed his company would use an "innovative sewage treatment system, the BIODIGESTOR, [to] revolutionize clients' wastewater management by providing sustainable alternatives to traditional septic tanks."
In support ofhis endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a five-year business plan, articles and government publications discussing the importance of retaining STEM professionals in the United States and the economic importance of immigrants in the STEM field, letters of recommendation attesting to the Petitioner's past accomplishments in the field, publications discussing the Petitioner's past municipal projects, and several job offer letters.2
The Director concluded that the record did not establish the substantial merit or national importance of the proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner generally asserts that the Director erred by not properly considering the evidence in the record, which included his five-year business plan, as well as articles and publications referenced in the record demonstrating the importance of the engineering field as "vital to the competitive success of the United States."Plan or projections not corroborated In asserting his eligibility on appeal, the Petitioner reiterates the same claims provided in response to the Director's RFE, primarily relying on the importance of the civil engineering and construction fields to establish the national importance of his endeavor.
Upon de novo review, we disagree with the Director's conclusion regarding the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor and withdraw this determination. The record contains sufficient documentation, including industry reports discussing the importance of the civil engineering and construction fields to establish the substantial merit ofthe Petitioner's endeavor. As such, we conclude that the record supports the substantial merit ofhis proposed endeavor. However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not demonstrate its national importance.
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting 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 The Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in failing to explain why the business plan submitted on record did not establish the national importance of his endeavor. While we acknowledge the brevity in which the Director discussed the Petitioner's business endeavor, the Director's decision does acknowledge the Petitioner's plans regarding his company. Moreover, for the reasons discussed herein, we agree that the business plan does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. And therefore, any alleged error is, at most, harmless. See generally Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at, 350 n.5 (citing Japarkulova v. Holder, 615 F.3d 696, 701 (6th Cir. 2010) (stating that error is harmless where there is no "reason to believe that ... remand might lead to a different result" ( citation omitted))).
On appeal, the Petitioner places a considerable emphasis on the importance of the civil engineering and construction fields to assert the national importance of his endeavor. For example, the Petitioner states that the construction industry "shapes the nation's infrastructure, provides employment opportunities, drives innovation, supports housing needs, and enables disaster recovery." Additionally, the Petitioner discusses the ongoing initiatives to repave the road systems in the United States and other infrastructure projects. As previously noted, however, the importance of an industry in which a petitioner intends to work is not sufficient to establish the national importance of an endeavor as we must focus on the broader implications of "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar at 889. The Petitioner has not identified how his proposed endeavor would meaningfully impact the industry or these initiatives.
And, while he claims that his company will "hold significant importance in the [ c ]onstruction [i]ndustry as it will contribute to the sector's growth, sustainability, and overall development," the record does not support these claims as the business plan does not establish his services will result in meaningful impact to the industry beyond his direct customers. We also recognize the Petitioner's goals in ensuring sustainable and eco-friendly sewage options, specifically utilizing the biodigesters method for ecofriendly sewage systems, but again the Petitioner has not shown how relying on this methodology would result in broader implications beyond the benefits realized by his customers.No broader implications shown Nor has he explained whether his reliance on this methodology is akin to "improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" contemplated in Dhanasar. Id. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). In the same way teaching activities proposed by the petitioner in Dhanasar were not shown to have a broader impact on the field of STEM education, activities which only benefit the Petitioner's prospective customers, like the offerings outlined in the business plan, would not result in broader implications in the field.Past record does not show influence or success Dhanasar at 893.
The Petitioner's reliance on the shortage of civil engineers to establish the national importance of his endeavor is equally unpersuasive. He claims that, recognizing this shortage, his company will provide training and advancement to engineering professionals, yet the Petitioner does not explain how this would ameliorate the shortage of engineering professionals, nor does he provide sufficient details pertaining to this training, including whether this training would impact individuals outside of his company.Relied on a labor shortage Nevertheless, a shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the Petitioner's work nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision. Several of the Petitioner's claims of national importance could reasonably apply to any civil engineer, but Congress did not provide a blanket exemption for civil engineers with respect to the job offer and labor certification requirement. 3 Foreign civil engineers are typically subject to this requirement and therefore the intrinsic benefits of operating a civil engineering and construction consulting company are not presumptive grounds for waiving that requirement.
We have also reviewed the letters ofrecommendation and evidence of the Petitioner's prior projects, and while they establish the Petitioner has had a successful career, they do not establish the prospective impact ofhis proposed endeavor. For example, the letter from Mr. O-A-G-V- commends the Petitioner for his "great capacity in leading, organizing, and coordinating construction activities," however, the letter does not address the Petitioner's proposed company or explain the broader implications of his endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague While we recognize that the Petitioner has contributed to the development of critical projects, including in underserved areas, a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
Finally, we also agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that the endeavor would have a "a significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or otherwise reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Id. The business plan states that, by its fifth year of operation, the company intends to employ 11 employees, have a total annual payroll expense of $795,063, and generate total annual sales of$1,287,490. Notably, however, the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections. And, even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were properly explained and supported with evidence, 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.
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would be of national importance, and he therefore does not meet the requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under Dhanasar's second and third prongs as well as a determination as to whether the Petitioner has met the requirements ofEB-2 classification. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reached"); see also Matter of L-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).
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.