The Petitioner, a systems engineering specialist, 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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, 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 of proof 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 ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015).
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance. Thus, he did not meet the required first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Because these identified bases for denial are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prongs. 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
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 p. 2 degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
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, 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 Petitioner states that he is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, with more than 30 years of experience in telecommunications engineering, power equipment installation, and network optimization. With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education and experience, a professional history and personal statement describing his future and claimed eligibility for a national interest waiver, and recommendation and support letters. He also submitted industry reports and articles discussing the importance of telecommunication infrastructure as a national priority.
The Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor is "to improve U.S. telecommunications infrastructure reliability, enhance operational efficiency, reduce maintenance costs, and facilitate a more skilled workforce." He states that he will "work as an independent contractor, developing and implementing best practices, standards, and guidelines for the installation, construction, and maintenance of power equipment and wireless communication infrastructure."
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, it concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance, that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the United States.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
A. Member of Professions Holding an Advanced Degree
The Petitioner asserts that he qualifies for advanced degree professional classification by virtue of a foreign education equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree and more than five years of postbaccalaureate experience in the specialty, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). He does not make any claim to qualify as an individual with exceptional ability.
Without a discussion or analysis of the evidence in the record, SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as a professional holding an advanced degree. After reviewing the record, we disagree with SCOPS' determination.
As noted above, a petition for an advanced degree professional must include evidence that a petitioner possesses a "United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate [or] A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). In addition, a petitioner must meet all of the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12).
In order to show that a petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied by "[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Alternatively, a petitioner may present "[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer( s) showing that the [individual] has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B).
The Petitioner submitted his diploma, titled Titulo de Ingeniero de Sistemas, and academic transcripts froml lin Colombia. He also submitted an academic
- A letter, dated June 23, 2023, stating that the Petitioner has been employed foll-time withl Isince March 30, 2020 in the role of field technician.
However, inconsistencies preclude us from determining that the Petitioner possesses five years ofpostbaccalaureate experience.Inconsistencies in the record The Petitioner submitted a prior non-immigrant visa application in July 201 7. In his 201 7 application, which the Petitioner stated that he completed without assistance, he listed his present employer as I Iwith no previous employment. This is inconsistent with the experience letter that claims the Petitioner worked for I Ionly through November 2016. It is also inconsistent with the experience letter in the record froml I, as the Petitioner stated on his non-immigrant visa application that he had no employment prior to[ I. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988).
In sum, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has at least five years progressive experience following his bachelor's degree as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).Five years of progressive experience not documented However, because the Petitioner was not on notice of these issues, this does not form the basis of our dismissal. The Petitioner must address and resolve the inconsistencies in his employment history and claimed qualifying experience in any farther filings.
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first 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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
Following initial review, SCOPS issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish his eligibility for the national interest waiver. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes additional letters of support and recommendation, additional industry reports and articles, an updated personal statement, and a professional plan.
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, SCOPS determined that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, it concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor had national importance. SCOPS stated that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a regional or national impact at a level consistent with having national importance, or that his work will have broader implications in his field of endeavor, going beyond his own business and clients.Proposed endeavor too vague Additionally, SCOPS determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate national interest factors such as the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit of his prospective contributions to the United States, an urgent national interest in his contributions, the potential creation ofjobs, or that his self-employment does not adversely affect U.S. workers.No urgency shown
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts, among other things, that SCOPS applied an incorrect standard and imposed requirements outside of controlling precedent and regulations by, for instance, conflating his p. 5 proposed endeavor with his proposed employment, as well as conflating the legal standards for the first and second Dhanasar prongs. He also argues, citing Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994), that SCOPS did not properly consider or discuss the totality of the evidence and thereby arbitrarily exercised its discretion.
As an initial matter, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's argument that SCOPS abused its discretion. The court in Buletini, did not reject the concept of examining the quality of the evidence presented to determine whether it establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does it suggest that USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the 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. Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022); Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir. 1992); ajf'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); Kazemzadeh v. US. Att)·. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Teixeira, 62 F.4th 10, 25 (1st Cir. 2023) ( concluding a trier of fact "need not articulate its conclusions as to every jot and tittle of evidence in making a determination"). Here, SCOPS' decision reflects consideration ofthe evidence in the totality even though SCOPS did not address each piece of evidence individually. Based on the evidence of record, SCOPS concluded, and we agree, that the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the endeavor's potential prospective impact to establish its national importance.
In Dhanasar, we noted that "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. 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 submits articles and industry reports describing the importance of telecommunications infrastructure, cybersecurity, and digital equity in the United States. The Petitioner asserts that because his endeavor aligns directly with national priorities, such as U.S. competitiveness, telecommunications, and infrastructure, he established the national importance of his proposed endeavor. However, the articles and industry reports do not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or its potential impact on the field or on national initiatives.Past record does not show influence or success We recognize the overall benefits of improved telecommunications access and infrastructure to the economy and society. However, working in the telecommunications field is insufficient to establish the national importance ofthe proposed endeavor. Instead offocusing on the importance ofan industry or the need for workers in a specific industry, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
We acknowledge the Petitioner's argument on appeal that nothing in the regulations or in Matter of Dhanasar requires evidence specifically mentioning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor by name. However, upon review of the record, we conclude that SCOPS did not rely solely on this basis for its decision, nor did it impose such a requirement on the Petitioner. Rather, SCOPS considered the totality of the articles and industry reports to conclude that, while they identify telecommunications p. 6 infrastructure as critical, the evidence provides general information and does not focus on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.
When determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 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 id. at 889. As noted above, SCOPS determined the endeavor has substantial merit, and we agree. However, the question we are examining here is national importance. Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to shortage, trends and needs in the field generally, rather than his specific proposed endeavor. Even considering the articles, reports, and statistics collectively and in the totality of circumstances, we still conclude that they do not support a finding that his specific proposed endeavor has national importance.
The Petitioner also submits his professional plan and personal statements to support the national importance of his proposed endeavor. As noted, to establish national importance, the Petitioner must demonstrate the proposed endeavor's impact. Although the Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor "will help fuel economic growth and foster job creation," he has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence.Job creation or economic claims unsupported The Petitioner's business plan projects that the company will generate $160,000 in revenue by its fifth year, contributing $76,126 to the social security system, $17,804 to the Medicare system, and more than $135,000 in federal income tax. The Petitioner's projected revenues and tax contributions do not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects as contemplated by Dhanasar. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting his own company and clients or have broader implications within the field of telecommunications.Benefits limited to an employer or its clients The record does not establish that his proposed endeavor stands to impact the field as a whole.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's
The Petitioner also submitted numerous support letters but they likewise do not establish the endeavor's national importance. 3 A letter from I l electrical engineering professor, states that the Petitioner desi,ned software that resulted in "l00% enhancement in key performance indicators." However, Mr. _
Idoes not discuss how this
improved telecommunications infrastructure generally is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor has national importance.
Although the letters praise the Petitioner's qualifications and professional accomplishments, his skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. And although many of the letters do reference the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, they are largely conclusory in nature and do not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for their claims.Support letters generic or unsupported
On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon the evidence he previously submitted and asserts that SCOPS did not "provide any substantive commentary, as mandated by the relevant regulations, on the expert letters and updated model plan submitted by the Petitioner." The Petitioner continues to rely upon the asserted merits of the services he will provide, his personal and professional qualities and achievements, and the trends in telecommunications. However, as set forth above, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375. Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive ofthe Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs. 4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision ofwhich 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).
Even if we had addressed the remaining issues, we still would have dismissed this appeal. As noted above, SCOPS concluded that, although the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish its national importance, that he was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. On appeal, the Petitioner references the same supporting evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response and does not provide any new evidence. SCOPS fully addressed the previously submitted evidence and explained how it was deficient in establishing that the Petitioner met the three Dhanasar factors and would be eligible for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner's assertions on appeal do not establish that he meets all of the three Dhanasar prongs.
Conclusion
As the record does not establish that the Petitioner has met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. In any further filings the Petitioner must also establish that he qualifies for second-preference classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 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 ofa 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.