The Petitioner, a specialist in adaptive sports therapy, 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 Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not established 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 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter a/Christa '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.
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. 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.
IL ANALYSIS
SCOPS found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a Bachelor of Education (Physical Education) and a Master of Science in Adapted Physical Education. The Petitioner listed his occupation as "Specialist in Adaptive Sports Therapy" and his proposed employment as "Adaptive Physical Education Specialist" on his Form I-140. In a statement submitted with his Form I-140 retition, the Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor is to establish! . an inclusive adaptive sports center. Specifically, the Petitioner states that: _________ __, will focus on providing a supportive environment where participants can engage in boccia, a sport that fosters physical and social skills for disabled persons, enhancing both confidence and community connections. My vision is to create a welcoming space that encourages participation, teamwork, and enjoyment, empowering individuals with disabilities to pursue athletic excellence and personal growth.
In his business plan, the Petitioner proposes that. _____________,will establish a boccia p. 3 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. Additionally, "[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 business plan for. ______________.provides that he will establish a boccia club that "will empower people with disabilities such as CP [ cerebral palsy], helping them lead more active and fulfilling lives while positioning Florida as a leader in disabilit su ort and inclusive community development." The plan further provides that will hire 22 new employees over a five-year period and its location in.__ _ ___. Florida will be within the 1 I I Imetropolitan area where average per business annual revenues in the Recreational Sports Clubs Industry range between $300,000 and $1,600,000 ...." We have reviewed the staffing and revenue projections in the submitted business plan. The Petitioner projects that his proposed company, within five years, will cumulatively pay wages of over $1.5 million, generate gross revenues of over $2.3 million, and contribute over $107,039 in tax revenue to the economy.
We find that the Petitioner's business plan does not have a specific explanation ofhow the employment and revenue projections will be realized, and even if it did, the plan does not demonstrate the proposed endeavor's significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national economy. The record does not show that the creation of 22 jobs and the expected tax revenue generated by the Petitioner's company will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Nor does it show that it would have positive economic effects in an economically depressed area. Although the business plan mentions that certain parts of I I Florida have been federally designated as having a significant percentage of the population with incomes below the poverty level, the plan does not explicitly state that the proposed endeavor would be located in one ofthose areas. There is no evidence that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be based in an economically depressed area, that it would employ a significant population of workers in such an area, or that the endeavor would otherwise offer a region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or related tax revenue.
In response to SCOPS' s request for evidence, the Petitioner also points to his submission ofresearch studies and other articles discussing the benefits of adaptive sports for individuals with disabilities and asserted that his proposed endeavor is of national importance because of "[t]he sheer number of Americans who stand to benefit, the proven physical/mental health gains and social integration it offers, the alignment with federal disability ri,hts and health initiatives, and the positive economic employment impacts." He further asserted that' Iis of substantial national impmiance due to its profound potential to positively impact the lives of individuals with disabilities across the United States." However, the Petitioner does not offer an evidentiary basis to conclude that his operation of a boccia club with one location will have such far-reaching results. The record does not establish, for example, that the Petitioner plans to introduce new techniques, such that his specific endeavor would provide a platform for the introduction of new training processes or methodologies for working with individuals with disabilities, or that he would otherwise be positioned to influence the broader field or industry in this regard. As a result, the record does not support a determination that the Petitioner's operation of a local adaptive sports center will have "broader implications" and p. 4 "national or even global implications within a particular field," as contemplated by Dhanasar.No broader implications shown See id. at 890.
Based on the foregoing, we find that Petitioner has not submitted evidence to persuasively establish how his endeavor will have a broader impact consistent with national importance. Accordingly, we will withdraw SCOPS's finding that the Petitioner has established that his proposed endeavor meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. Id. at 890. To determine whether they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.Past record does not show influence or success Id.
In finding that the Petitioner does not meet this prong, SCOPS stated that the Petitioner's evidence establishes that he has education, training, and has been recognized for his experience in the field of his proposed endeavor, but this evidence focuses on past achievements and does not show his current or future efforts to advance his proposed endeavor. Specifically, SCOPS found that the business plan states that the total operating cost for one year of the Petitioner's endeavor is $477,050, but he failed to submit evidence of having this funding to create or operate his proposed endeavor.Plan or projections not corroborated SCOPS further found that the Petitioner failed to submit evidence that he is currently licensed to practice as an educator or a therapist in the United States.
On appeal, the Petitioner asse1is that he has "already taken extensive and proactive steps toward advancing his endeavor," including "forming a U.S. entity, developing a detailed business plan, completing U.S.-based certification, securing stakeholder support, and demonstrating measurable success in similar roles globally." Additionally, the Petitioner notes that he has education and training in the field based on his bachelor's degree in physical education froml lin Colombia and master's degree in adapted physical education froml lin Spain.
He asserts that he has experience in the field related to his endeavor, as shown through his employment atl Idesigning and implementing a1aptive I p. 5 modalities" and served as a personal trainer, leisure instructor, and a personal assistant, while the letter I lcommending him for his "assistant role in innovative programs;" a letter from a professor from I Istates that the Petitioner "has been collaborating as instructor." The Petitioner submitted evidence that he received a license from thel I ~o work as an "assistant" at thel a paddleI
I
I I He also submitted: a recommendation letter from a Ph.D. student at I I atl btating that she "recommend considering [the Petitioner's] profile for roles within adapted sports;" a letter from another professor atl Istating that the Petitioner "has successfully integrated people with cerebral palsy and reduced mobility into sports practice;" and a letter from the senior manager of training and education a~ Ifinding that the Petitioner "can significantly contribute to the widespread practice of boccia among individuals with cerebral palsy, as well as people with any type of disability ...." When viewed in totality, the Petitioner's evidence shows that he has education and experience as a sports instructor, particularly in the field of adaptive sports for individuals with disabilities. We acknowledge that education and experience are relevant considerations that may demonstrate that a person is well-positioned to advance their endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. However, the submitted documentation does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has relevant managerial experience developing and overseeing business operations for a sports club and his education and past work experience does not suffice to otherwise establish that he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor.
Moreover, we find that the Petitioner's description of his endeavor includes roles that far exceed the role and normal duties and responsibilities of an individual sports instructor and are not tied to any specific or plausible plan to achieve those specific proposed objectives, as he has not provided evidence of qualifications beyond those expected of an adaptive sports instructor. Although "we do not ... require petitioners to demonstrate that their endeavors are more likely than not to ultimately succeed," to establish eligibility, "petitioners must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, the record shows that the Petitioner's experience is limited to serving in the positions of sports instructor and assistant. Additionally, although the Petitioner claims that he submitted letters showing "stakeholder support," those referenced recommendation letters simply note his qualifications as a sports instructor; they do not indicate plans to collaborate with or fund the Petitioner's business. The Petitioner generally asserts that he submitted letters from potential partners and equipment sponsors but does not farther name or provide information on the authors of the letters and such letters do not appear to be in the record.Support letters generic or unsupported As a result, the Petitioner in this case has not demonstrated that he has a "record of success in related or similar efforts ... any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals." Id. While we agree that the Petitioner appears to have experience working as a licensed sports instructor for individuals with disabilities, he has not established that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor of opening and operating a sports club. As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning his eligibility under the third prong 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 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).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first and second prongs ofthe 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. 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 ofa Form I-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.