The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the veterinary field, 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).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a waiver ofthe job offer requirement 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 Christo '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) 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, 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 Director 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 first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework requires the Petitioner to establish the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. We agree with the Director that the submitted documentation establishes the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. With respect to her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner stated in her definitive statement that she intends to "continue using my expertise and knowledge to work as a Chief Executive Officer (CEO)/Entrepreneur managing and operating my own company, thereby contribute [sic] to the U.S. economy in the Veterinary Services Industry. I will do this by developing and expanding my business in the nation, I I _______
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erroneously imposed a stricter standard ofproof With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that they meet each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what they claim is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance standard, USCIS considers not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, the Petitioner does not specifically identify statements in the Director's decision applying a higher standard of proof or imposing novel substantive and evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the Dhanasar framework.
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. While the Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide veterinary services to her company's future clients, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level ofnational importance. 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. Id. at 893. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its clientele to impact her field, the veterinary industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
The Petitioner references criteria to be considered in determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance and asserts that the standard of national importance was incorrectly applied by the Director. The Petitioner states that the employment ofworkers through her proposed endeavor may have national importance even if it is limited to one geographic area of the United States. Regarding future staffing, the Petitioner stated that her company will generate 14 jobs in the first year, and after five years it will have around 4 7 full-time employees, 45 part-time employees, and 28 contractor employees. The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that in the first year the company will have a revenue of $807,500. The business plan is inconsistent in listing the projected revenue after five years. On page 12, it lists total revenue of $3,215,000, but the conclusion section and the Petitioner's definitive statement provides total revenue of $9,012,000. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.Inconsistencies in the record Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The Petitioner did not provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees and the revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved.Plan or projections not corroborated The Petitioner states that the software her company is going to develop will help the clinic provide information on current and past patients and will map potentially endemic areas for pathology in Florida. The Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail and establish how software containing information on her patients has national importance. The Petitioner mentions that her proposed endeavor has national importance due to improving societal welfare. She states that her proposed endeavor has national importance for the United States as her business will focus on disease prevention and control, including salmonellosis which is a public health problem. The Petitioner, however, has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that her veterinary business would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims. Furthermore, while any basic economic activity has p. 4 the potential to positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications in her field or to generate substantial positive economic effects in the region where her company will operate or in other parts of the United States.
The Petitioner states that the Director erroneously equated the lack of geographical implication and the lack ofpotential to employ U.S. workers as failure to show national importance and disregarded the other criteria for establishing national importance. We disagree with this claim as the Director noted that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of the prospective endeavor's potential prospective impact, including broader implications, or national or global implications within the field; significant potential to employ U.S. workers; substantial economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed field; broad enhancement of societal welfare; or broad enhancement of cultural or artistic enrichment.
The Petitioner mentions that veterinarians ensure the health of the human and animal population, and their work is fundamental to the development of humanity in scientific, nutritional, and health terms. The Petitioner states that demand for veterinary services has increased due to increased pet ownership, the prevalence ofpet health insurance, and longer lifespans of animals. The Petitioner previously submitted articles and industry reports about veterinarians and the role of immigrants in the workforce, and information from O*NET OnLine and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics related to chief executives. The issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; rather we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
The Petitioner states that her company will generate direct and indirect jobs, generating a multiplier effect of opportunities and business for the U.S. economy. She states that her proposed endeavor does more than generate income for private companies and individuals, rather it improves the monetary output of the U.S. economy by creating financial bridges and promoting economic development. The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently shown her business's purported ripple effects on the U.S. economy. She does not adequately explain what the impact on the national economy would be, and the record does not establish that her company would have sufficient size or scope to substantially affect the nation's economy or employment rate. The Petitioner has not shown 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. Specifically, she has not demonstrated that her company's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. She has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
The Petitioner has not established that she meets the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Therefore, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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 I&N p. 5 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.