The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in early childhood education, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. 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 although the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, he did not establish 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. 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
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 United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 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.
As an initial matter, although the Director determined that the Petitioner is a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree, upon de novo review, we disagree. The Petitioner provided a copy of her foreign degree and transcript, which show she began her studies in the second semester of 2008 and completed them after the first semester of 2011. According to the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) entry for the Titulo de Licenciada, it is awarded following two to four years ofundergraduate study and only the four-year program is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. 2 While we acknowledge the submission of an academic evaluation concluding the Petitioner's Titulo de Licenciada is the foreign equivalent ofa U.S. bachelor's degree, the evaluation inexplicably states that the Beneficiary's program lasted four years, ending in 2011, and does not address or explain the discrepancy with the length of the program from the provided transcript.Inconsistencies in the record We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign education as an advisory opinion. Matter ofSea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817,820 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we may discount or give less weight to that evaluation. Id. Further, the Petitioner has not established that she has five years of progressive experience in the specialty as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 3 As such, the Petitioner has not established that she is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and we withdraw the Director's determination to the contrary.Five years of progressive experience not documented
The Petitioner proposes to establish "an educational services firm that provides: (a) early school Christian education planned to be headquartered in Massachusetts with two business units in Rhode Island and Connecticut." In addition, the Petitioner stated that her endeavor will "generate jobs and improve the economy for U.S. citizens starting in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut."
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was of substantial merit, and we agree. However, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance.
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
In support of national importance, the Petitioner highlights staffing and revenue projections in the business plan projecting that her company would employ 79 employees and generate $20 million in revenue, with wages totaling $11.3 million, all within its first five years of operation. However, these projections are not supported by details showing their basis, nor do they sufficiently demonstrate a significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national economy. Specifically, the record does not support that the creation of 79 additional jobs in this sector or the expected revenue generated by the company would 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 Moreover, while the Petitioner states that her company will "have substantive positive economic effects, particularly in [an] economically depressed area," the Petitioner has not provided evidence that the area where her company intends to operate is economically depressed, that it would employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that her endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or related tax revenue. While her intentions are admirable, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support her claims. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.
The Petitioner further claims that her "educational model presents a case where innovative educational practices could set precedents for national educational standards and practices." The Petitioner, however, has not provided evidence demonstrating that her proposed endeavor would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Likewise, the Petitioner has not established how providing her educational services stands to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective students to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
Lastly, the Petitioner highlights the shortage of early childhood education professionals. However, such a shortage is not, in and of itself: sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor.Relied on a labor shortage Further, the Department of Labor directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through the labor certification process.
Because the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining Dhanasar prongs. 4 ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.