The Petitioner, an entrepreneur and financial expert, 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 required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. SCOPS dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 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.
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) 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
In her business plan submitted on motion, the Petitioner stated she would launch a company that "will provide business valuation services to business owners, helping them find buyers by leveraging innovative technologies like AI matching algorithms and marketing their businesses to wider audiences in other countries. Additionally, the Company will navigate American companies investing in Kazakhstan." The business plan states the Petitioner would serve as the general manager and executive consultant of the company.
SCOPS determined the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. We agree. The only issue on appeal is whether a waiver ofthe required job offer, and thus ofthe labor certification, would be in the national interest.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Id. 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. 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.
SCOPS determined the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects or broader implications to her field commensurate with national importance.No broader implications shown On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director did not properly evaluate the evidence and submits an addendum to her business plan.Plan or projections not corroborated
The Petitioner claims her company will "align closely with the national interests of the nation." The Petitioner states her company will assist "the older generation in transitioning into retirement with dignity and financial stability," thus contributing to "mitigating the looming issue of retirement and healthcare burdens." The Petitioner further claims her company will encourage economic growth and address unemployment by "facilitating the transition of businesses from retiring owners to aspiring entrepreneurs or employees." The Petitioner does not, however, demonstrate that her company's work would extend beyond individual client businesses, entrepreneurs or employees to impact her field more broadly in a manner commensurate with national importance. See id. at 889 ( explaining "we look for broader implications").
The Petitioner further asserts that the addendum to her business plan details "the innovative approach, market analysis, and potential impact on the local and national economy" which demonstrates "the prospective national importance of the proposed endeavor." The addendum does not support this claim. The addendum states the Petitioner's company will operate in New York, which has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. The addendum explains the Petitioner's company will increase awareness among retiring baby boomers that they can sell their businesses instead of closing them, enable boomers to monetize decades of work, prevent closure of businesses and preserve job opportunities in local communities, stimulate tax payments by businesses that remain operational, positively affect the employability of young people, and alleviate pressure from the state budget to support unemployed citizens and their families. The addendum provides no data or projections ofhow many businesses and individuals the Petitioner's company would assist or the amount of tax payments the company would stimulate. Without such information, the addendum's assertions alone do not establish the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's company.
The Petitioner's business plan submitted on motion also does not establish the national importance of her company. The business plan projects the company will employ 11 individuals the first year, increasing to 17 individuals in the fifth year. These projections do not indicate the company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers. The business plan states the business valuation firms industry's revenue is estimated to increase to seven billion dollars over five years to 2026. The business plan projects the company will have a net profit of$241,997 the first year, increasing to $573, 002 in the fifth year. These estimated profits do not indicate the company will have substantial positive economic effects in an industry whose revenue is estimated at seven billion dollars.
The business plan states the company will offer a free education channel, FDI advisory services, and institutional investors advisory services. The record does not indicate that any of these services are unique, innovative, or otherwise would have national or global implications in the business valuation industry. See id. (discussing improved manufacturing processes or medical advances as examples of national or even global implications within a particular field).
The Petitioner submitted support letters from past employers and colleagues who praise her skills and past work, and express confidence in her ability to contribute to the U.S. economy, but do not discuss her proposed endeavor. While these letters provide information relevant to the second Dhanasar prong, they do not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Cf id. at 892 (stating Dhanasar submitted probative expert letters describing the importance of his specific research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests).
The Petitioner submitted articles on small businesses, statistics on selling a business, how many businesses sell, financial managers and analysts, Main Street could face a tsunami of change as baby boomers retire, the importance of valuations, retirement statistics, the risks of an aging financial advising industry, public companies are challenged in attracting finance and accounting talent, the $8.5 trillion talent shortage, business buying industry statistics, incredible numbers of baby boomers are buying and selling businesses, and the bigger picture in selling your business. These articles address issues related to the Petitioner's company's proposed work, but do not discuss her specific proposed endeavor. Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field or issues affecting a field in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign p. 4 national proposes to undertake."Proposed endeavor too vague Id. at 889. Cf id. at 892 ( citing media articles and other evidence documenting Congressional interest in Dhanasar's research).
In sum, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within her field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Consequently, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has national importance.
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor and the Beneficiary 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 her 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").
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor and the Beneficiary does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary 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.