The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer in the automotive industry, 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. § l 153(b)(2). The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, but did not establish that 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe 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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
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," 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 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
I The Petitioner is a Body Dimensional Specialist with the I In his "Professional Plan" the Petitioner stated, "I will use my experience as a Mechanical Engineer to help enterprises in the automotive industry improve operations and achieve better productivity and profitability levels." The Petitioner added he will "help automotive industry companies succeed through proper mechanical engineering services" and focus on mechanical engineering applied to the automotive industry, process management and frame/stamping projects, painting/final assembly, product development/prototypes/product design, serial logistics, and product quality.
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. We agree. The only issue on appeal is whether he qualifies for and merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Id. at 889. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. We agree. The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish any broader impact his work would have on his field rising to the level of national importance.No broader implications shown
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts his proposed endeavor holds national importance as documented in his initial submission and response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). 2 In his RFE response, the Petitioner claimed his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has substantial positive economic effects because of various industrial factors including the high value of the automotive manufacturing market in the U.S., the volume of automotive sales, and the large number of Americans working in the automotive industry. The Petitioner did not submit evidence specifying how he, as an individual mechanical engineer, will employ U.S. workers or create other significant positive economic effects.Job creation or economic claims unsupported See id. at 890 ( explaining national importance may be shown by an endeavor that has "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial economic effects").
The Petitioner also claimed his proposed endeavor "will broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural enrichment" because the "automobile industry is a pillar of the global economy, a main driver of 2 The Petitioner also claims he was adversely affected by USCIS' notice that his petition was approved. He submits a copy of an e-mail message he received from USCIS Case Status stating his petition was approved. USCIS records indicate the e-mail was sent in error as the Director subsequently reviewed the Petitioner's response to the RFE and denied the petition. p. 3 macroeconomic growth and stability and technological advancement in both developed and developing countries." The Petitioner did not submit evidence ofhow his specific proposed endeavor will enhance societal welfare or cultural enrichment beyond his individual contributions to future employers as a mechanical engineer. See id. at 889 ( explaining we consider the potential prospective impact of the "specific endeavor.").
In addition, the Petitioner claimed his proposed endeavor has national importance because ofthe North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) requirements for the majority of automobile components to be manufactured in Canada, Mexico, or the United States and to guarantee a certain wage for up to 40 percent of automobile workers, and because the "Biden-Harris Administration announced new actions to grow American competitiveness, [and] expand manufacturing jobs." The Petitioner did not submit evidence detailing how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would contribute to these national concerns beyond his work for individual employers in the future. Rather than focusing on the importance of an industry in general, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id.
The Petitioner also asserted his proposed endeavor will have national importance by addressing "professional demand and talent shortage in the field of Mechanical Engineers." The Petitioner claimed he has the ability to innovate organizations, which will then "be able to attract more candidates for manufacturing positions." Beyond his individual contributions to future employers, the Petitioner does not specify how he would contribute to his field in this area more broadly.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not address all of the evidence submitted with the initial petition and RFE response which demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Although we agree the Director did not discuss all the relevant evidence, they did provide a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and the Petitioner has not established how any documents not directly addressed established the national importance of his endeavor or his eligibility for the benefit sought. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration ofthe petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence a petitioner presents. See Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022); Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir. 1992); aff'd Morales v. INS, 208 F.3d 323, 328 (1st Cir. 2000); see also Pakasi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2009); and Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009). Thus, upon de novo review, the Director did not err in the ultimate determination on national importance, as discussed further below.
The Petitioner submitted support letters from his previous employers atl Iin Brazil and the United States. These employers praise the Petitioner's experience, skills, and past work for the company, but do not discuss any impact his proposed endeavor ma have on the automotive industry more broadly. I IProduction Engineer at praises
I
Petitioner's past accomplishments at but they do not discuss any impact of the Petitioner's work in his field or discuss his proposed endeavor. _______Manager with _____ describes the Petitioner as an "invaluable asset to the plant" and praises his work on the launch of the electric I I in which he was "instrumental in reducing costs and optimizing production." Although Mr. I I states the Petitioner has "positively influenced the field," he only discusses the Petitioner's work at the plant and does not address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or any broader implications it would have on the automotive industry. Measurement Center Manager with the ____________ states "[a]s a result of [the Petitioner's] invaluable contributions, the launch of the was a a resounding success." Mr. describes the Petitioner as "one of the most capable bod mechanical engineers I have ever had the privilege of working with" and states his work on "has enhanced the company's reputation and driven innovation in the automotive market." Mr. does not specify how the Petitioner's individual contributions drove innovation in the automotive market or discuss any other broader implications of the Petitioner's work or proposed endeavor in the automotive industry.Proposed endeavor too vague Similarly, in a letter to the U.S. Consulate in Brazil in support of the Petitioner's visa, Global Assignments Manager, I I describes him as a "critical asset" to I I U.S.
B. Remaining Dhanasar Prongs
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor and he does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive 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"); 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
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, he has not demonstrated that he is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.