The Petitioner, a well-being consultant, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, as well as finding that the proposed endeavor was not of national importance, the Petitioner is not well positioned to advance the endeavor, and that it not would be beneficial to waive the requirements of a job offer. 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 afChawathe, 25 I&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.
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree.
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation p. 2 that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise and will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States. 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. 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,3 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 Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that she was a member of the professions holding an advanced degree as she did not provide a translated version of her transcript for her purported bachelor's degree. 4 We agree that the translated transcript has not been submitted and as such, the Petitioner has not established that she has the bachelor's degree required for eligibility as an advanced degree professional. 5
The Petitioner also claimed eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability. However, because we conclude that she is not eligible for, and does not merit as a matter of discretion, a national interest waiver, and this determination is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the issue of her eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. 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); 1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii).
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).
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. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
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. 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.
The appeal brief states that the Petitioner's beauty and wellness consultancy firm will "play a crucial role in helping the American population achieve their desired wellness outcomes." The evidence provided does not demonstrate that this specific endeavor is of national importance.
In 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a 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. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of her work. In Dhanasar we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893.
The Petitioner argues on appeal that her proposed work is nationally important because its "contribution to the economy, public health, and overall well-being make it an invaluable part of the ... landscape of the U.S. beauty and wellness industry." Yet the brief and the record do not explain how the business would impact the overall field more broadly beyond its clients and trainees on the level of national importance.No broader implications shown The brief generally discusses the growth of the beauty and wellness industry and describes that the Petitioner's business will provide training workshops for those in the field. It then concludes that because ofthese trainings, her firm will contribute to the industry's growth and advancement. The brief submitted with the initial petition adds that the business will specialize in helping clients "overcome physical challenges, achieve their personal goals and improve their overall well-being" through a wide range of services, and that its contributions to individuals' wellbeing make it nationally important.
First, we observe that the appeal briefs focus on the beauty and wellness industry's growth and economic impact ignores the requirements we set forth in Dhanasar. It is not the importance of the field that determines an endeavor's national importance, but rather how the specific endeavor will impact the field on a level commensurate with national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Additionally, the briefs neglect to explain how the business's training of individuals and wellness services to individual clients will impact the overall beauty and wellness field at a nationally important level.
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate national importance either. 6 The Petitioner provided a report on the U.S. wellness industry's economic growth. 7 This report is of little evidentiary value as it does not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or how it would have broad implications in the beauty and wellness field in a way that implicates national importance. The Petitioner also presented her resume, letters of recommendations from associates, educational certificates, licenses, employment verification letters, service receipts, and documentation regarding her work history. Nevertheless, the Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments, training, and experiences, not the specific endeavor's potential impact in wellness field. Generally, this type of evidence is more appropriate for the second prong when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
The Petitioner also provided a letter from Dr. I I a lecturer at I As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int '!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). Nonetheless, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here the advisory opinion is of little probative value as Dr. I Ievaluation mainly focuses on the importance, size, and growth of the U.S. beauty and wellness industry. Dr. I Ifocus of the importance of the field ignores the requirements in Dhanasar that an endeavor's importance is determined by its impact on the field, not the importance of the field itself. 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The evaluation also makes the conclusive statement that because the Petitioner's will train individuals and will help fill the demand for skilled workers, the endeavor is nationally important. However, she neglects to illustrate how the Petitioner's trainings will impact the field on nationally important level, beyond her students. Overall, the evaluation does not explain how the endeavor would impact the field beyond the company' s clients or how it would have an economic impact on par with national importance.Job creation or economic claims unsupported From the evidence provided, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor will have a national impact on the beauty and wellness industry.
Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 6 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 7 We note that the Petitioner submitted additional articles, job offers, and educational training documentation after the initial filing. However, this evidence originated after the filing of the petition.Not eligible at the time of filing 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). p. 5 substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may have national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, however, the business plan does not adequately support its projections ofrevenue creation.Plan or projections not corroborated
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates the Petitioner's company will generate $57,670 in revenue in year one, increasing to $89,995 in year three. Nonetheless, the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the business plan's fmancial projections. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably true, where the determination of truth is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See id. Here, the lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value of the business plan.
Even if we assumed all the projections in the business plan were accurate, the record lacks evidence demonstrating that its impact would be nationally important. The brief submitted with the petition contends that her business will "substantially contribute to the small business sector in the United States." However, the Petitioner did not provide documentation to support these statements that the company will result in substantial economic growth on the level of national importance. The record does not illustrate how generating the revenue projected in the business plan, would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national importance. The Petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has therefore not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Accordingly, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance.
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond her clients to affect the region or nation more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893.Proposed endeavor too vague She has not shown that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong ofthe Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 (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 of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7 (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.