The Petitioner, a logistician, 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).
SCOPS denied the petition. The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. However, the Director concluded that the record does not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of 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.
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 the proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. However, for the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id.
The Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan to operate "a consulting business that will provide strategic guidance to businesses in optimizing their logistics operations." The Petitioner submitted a business plan, which indicates the logistics consulting services company would be headquartered in I !Pennsylvania, and that it would provide "logistics optimization consulting services to small, medium, and large companies ... from various industries, including manufacturing, retail, e-commerce, pharmaceuticals, and technology [to] meet the specific needs of each client." The record also contains letters from potential investors. The letters generally opine that the authors' proposed investments in the Petitioner's consulting business "will generate significant returns not only for myself but also for the U.S. economy, particularly as [the consulting company] focuses on optimizing supply chains that are critical to national industries."Support letters generic or unsupported However, neither the letters nor the remainder of the record objectively substantiate the reasons for anticipating those generalized returns on investment, or any particular supply chain the proposed endeavor may optimize.Proposed endeavor too vague
The Petitioner also indicated that he is "actively working on a startup to develop an app tailored to the logistics industry." He describes the app's function as coordinating food deliveries and scheduling independent contractors to perform household chores, similar to existing apps that perform those functions.
The Director determined that "the proposed endeavor has substantial merit," as required in part by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. The Director also acknowledged the Petitioner's business plan, and the letters from potential investors. However, the Director noted that the record does not establish the particular location where the Petitioner would pursue the proposed endeavor, which precludes a determination ofwhether employing workers in that location would demonstrate a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, and how substantial the positive economic effects may be in such an area.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Based on those and similar issues, the Director determined the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance. The Director further concluded that the record does not satisfy the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See id.
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that the business plan and letters from potential investors establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance. More specifically, the Petitioner reasserts that the proposed endeavor has "significant potential to positively impact the U.S. economy, particularly through job creation, supply chain resilience, and sustainability." The Petitioner also emphasizes that the proposed endeavor would be headquartered inl IPennsylvania, which "contains zip codes p. 3 classified as economically distressed, underscoring the city's ongomg strnggle with econom1c revitalization."
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the [individual] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90.
The business plan, noted above, states that the company would initially employ six workers; however, by the end of the fifth year of operations, the company would employ 22 workers, including the Petitioner as its chief executive officer, six "planning and expediting clerks," four operations consultants, three logistics analysts, two information technology specialists, two purchasing agents, two storage and distribution managers, one operations manager, and one "co-manager." The business plan also asserts that, "by operating in the I lin New York, the Company will generate [in]direct effects on employment [and] household earnings." However, the record does not clarify why the business plan uses estimations for the indirect effects anticipated by operating in New York, rather than using estimations based on operating in I I Pennsylvania, where the plan otherwise indicates the company would operate. Relatedly, we note that, although the business plan asserts, "The following table shows the BEA's RIMS II multipliers for the I Iin New York," the corresponding tab le
The record does not reconcile why the Petitioner stated on the Form T-140 that his annual wage would be $150,000 but the business plan indicates that his annual wage would be substantially less than that, ranging from between $85,000 to $103,318, nor does it reconcile why the Petitioner stated on the Form T-140 that his job title would be "logistics expert" but the business plan asserts that his job title would be "chief executive officer." We note that the business plan does not indicate that any of the workers at the consulting company would have the job title of "logistics expert," although some would be logistics analysts, and their job duties are distinguishable from those of the chief executive officer's as described in the plan, underscoring the distinction between the Petitioner's positions referenced on the Form 1-140 and within the business plan.
The extent of the discrepancies between the Petitioner's statements regarding his own annual wage and job on the Form 1-140 and the business plan-which appears to indicate on its cover that the Petitioner prepared it himself-cast doubt on the veracity ofthe business plan, specifically its financial information, undermining the reliability and sufficiency of the business plan and the totality of the record more generally. See id. at 591 (providing that doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition). Because the reliability and sufficiency of the business plan's salary information is undermined, the reliability and sufficiency of its other financial information, including revenue estimations and anticipated expense calculations, such as the number of workers the consulting company may need-and afford-to employ, are similarly undermined. The veracity of the financial information in the record is material to the first Dhanasar prong because it addresses the extent to which the proposed endeavor may have the potential to employ U.S. workers and have other positive economic effects, and indeed what those economic effects may be, which are factors in determining whether an endeavor may have national importance. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889-90.
Even to the extent that the evidence in the record may be reliable and sufficient, it does not establish whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance. For example, neither the business plan, nor the letters from potential investors, nor the remainder of the record establish that the logistics consulting services company may have national or even global implications within the field of logistics, manufacturing, commerce, pharmaceuticals, or any other particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. See id. Rather, the business plan, the letters, and the remainder of the record indicate that the logistics consulting services company would provide consulting services similar to other, typical logistics consulting services companies with limited effect, designed to "meet the specific needs ofeach client." Similarly, as noted above, the app the Petitioner proposes to develop appears to be duplicative of other existing apps that coordinate food deliveries and schedule independent contractors to perform household chores, rather than having national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. See id.
Although the business ran states that the logistics consulting services company would operate generally in I Pennsylvania, neither the business plan nor the remainder of the record establish the significance of creating 22 additional jobs in the positions noted above, working in the relevant sector(s), i~ !Pennsylvania, or anywhere else. Moreover, as the Director observed, because the record does not clarify any particular location within the I IPennsylvania, metropolitan area where the logistics company may operate, the record does not establish whether any p. 5 economic effects it may create would be in an economically depressed area. See id. (noting that whether a proposed endeavor may create substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, is a factor in determining whether an endeavor may have national importance).
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. Accordingly, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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).
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.