The Petitioner, an advertising, promotions, and marketing manager, 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). SCOPS denied the petition. SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. However, SCOPS also concluded 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.
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years ofprogressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
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. p. 2 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
SCOPS observed that the record contains a copy of the Petitioner's "foreign Bachelor's Degree in International Trade and Business Administration, conferred to [her] by a school inl IITurkey] and a second Bachelor's Degree in European Economy and Business Administration from Austria, June 2007 /2009 respectively." Based on the copies of those degrees in the record, SCOPS concluded, "As such, the [P]etitioner established eligibility for ... a member of the professions holding an advanced degree."
SCOPS' determination that, because the Petitioner earned two foreign bachelor's degrees, she qualifies as a member of the profession holding an advanced degree is erroneous. First, SCOPS did not articulate whether the Petitioner's foreign bachelor's degrees are equivalent to U.S. bachelor's degrees, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Second, even if the Petitioner's foreign bachelor's degrees are equivalent to U.S. bachelor's degrees, a second bachelor's degree is not a degree above that of a bachelor's degree. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining an advanced degree as a U.S. academic or professional degree, or a foreign equivalent degree, above that of a bachelor's degree). Therefore, in order to qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on a degree at the baccalaureate level, the record would need to establish that the Petitioner followed a qualifying bachelor's degree with at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. Id. Again, SCOPS did not articulate whether the Petitioner did so. Therefore, we withdraw SCOPS' statement that, by virtue of the Petitioner holding two foreign bachelor's degrees, she qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Turning to SCOPS' stated grounds for denying the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, 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 Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
The Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan to "continue working with bees, bee products and beekeepers through her current employer . . . and its brand [ of] immune boosters and natural supplements ... developing, marketing and promoting sustainable and ethical products and business processes" in the United States. The Petitioner submitted, in relevant part, copies of publications providing generalized information regarding "the bee industry," public health, and advertising, 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). p. 3 promotions, and marketing managers; information regarding the Petitioner's former and current employers, including a business plan for her current employer; and letters of recommendation. SCOPS determined that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required in part by the first Dhanasar prong; however, SCOPS concluded that the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as also required in part by the first Dhanasar prong. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. More specifically, SCOPS noted that the record establishes the proposed endeavor would benefit the Petitioner's employer and its customers, but the record "does not convey an understanding of how [her] proposed employment activities ... stand to have a broader impact on the field." SCOPS explained that the generalized publications relate to the "overall importance of honey or bee products in general" but they do not establish how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national importance.Proposed endeavor too vague SCOPS observed that the letters of recommendation address the Petitioner's qualifications, but they do not establish how the proposed endeavor would have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance contemplated by Dhanasar.No broader implications shown SCOPS further concluded that the record does not satisfy the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See id.
Because we determine that the record does not establish whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance, which is dispositive, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 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 of L-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). On appeal, the Petitioner first alleges as a procedural issue, 'The date of the actual denial notice ... is postdated against administrative regulations, and creates an administrative and procedural error that creates a presumption of bad-faith and that the USCIS did not exercise enough diligence and time in reviewing the petition and the submitted RFE response before making a decision." More specifically, the Petitioner submits a photocopy of the envelope in which SCOPS mailed the denial notice. The envelope is postmarked June 20, 2025, whereas the denial notice is dated June 24, 2025.
Given that June 20, 2025, was a Friday, the discrepancy between the postmark date and the date printed on the denial notice includes only two business days. USCIS records indicate that SCOPS received the Petitioner's response to a request for evidence (RFE) on June 9, 2025. The Petitioner does not clarify how much time she believes would constitute "enough diligence and time in reviewing the petition and the submitted RFE response before making a decision," and how the distinction between nine or 11 business days reviewing the RFE response and the record, and drafting the denial notice, is meaningful. Rather, the Petitioner claims that the date discrepancy prejudices her by shortening the time in which she could file the instant Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion.Inconsistencies in the record USCIS received the Petitioner's Form I-290B on July 25, 2025, which was 35 days after the envelope's postmark date but only 31 days after the date printed on the denial notice. USCIS did not reject the Petitioner's Form I-290B as untimely, which it would have been if June 20, 2025, were used to calculate the filing period-which it was not. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1.2, 103.3(a)(2)(i), 103.8(b) (providing that appeals of decisions served by mail must be filed within 33 calendar days, except when the final date is a Saturday, Sunday or federal holiday); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l) (directing USCIS to reject untimely appeals). Moreover, the Petitioner submitted a brief with the Form I-290B, even p. 4 though the form provides appellants the option to submit a brief within 30 calendar days after filing the form, instead of submitting a brief at the time of filing. The Petitioner does not establish how the date discrepancy tangibly affected her. Therefore, this claimed error is, at most, harmless. See generally Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing cases regarding harmless or scrivener's errors).
The Petitioner next offers anecdotal information regarding trends in SCOPS' denials of Forms I-140 filed by petitioners seeking national interest waivers, and regarding trends in our adjudication of appeals thereof However, the Petitioner does not provide details, supported by probative evidence, regarding the merits or procedural deficiencies ofthe abstract denied national interest waiver petitions she references, and dismissals of appeals thereof: to contextualize the anecdotal trends she reports. More to the point, the Petitioner's discussion ofadjudication trends in national interest waiver petitions other than her own does not articulate an error in SCOPS' decision on her petition that may be redressed on appeal, and we need not address it farther. See generally 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(l)(ii), 103.3(a)(2)(i) (providing that certain unfavorable decisions on petitions may be appealed by the corresponding petitioner).
Turning to substantive issues, the Petitioner reasserts on appeal that the proposed endeavor has national importance because she will be "developing, marketing and promoting sustainable and ethical products and business processes[, not] advertising, marketing, developing and selling insurance products or medical devices." More specifically, she reasserts:
The contractual beekeeping model, devised by [her] and her team, and which she is promoting, marketing, and trying to establish in the United States ... is an 'improved manufacturing process,' and a novel business and marketing way of solving the American and the global problems with unethical and unsustainable beekeeping practices, which has the potential to impact the entire nation, and, perhaps the entire world.
The Petitioner also references the generalized publications and letters of recommendation in the record, which she asserts support the conclusion that the proposed endeavor has national importance.Support letters generic or unsupported She clarifies that "increased entrepreneurship and job creation ... may very well result ... as a side effect ... but, this is not what the [ n ]ational [i]nterest and the [i]ntrinsic [ v ]alue in this case is all about."
In determining national importance under the first Dhanasar prong, 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 of Dhanasar, 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.
We recognize the importance of progress in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and the essential role of persons with advanced STEM degrees in fostering this progress, especially in focused critical and emerging technologies or other STEM areas important to U.S. competitiveness or national security. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. However, as in all cases, a proposed endeavor implicating a STEM field must demonstrate not only substantial merit but also national importance, such as by having national or even global implications within a particular field, beyond merely being in a STEM field. See generally id.; see also Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90.
We first note that the business plan in the record contains contradictory, arbitrary, and unsubstantiated financial information that, when considered with other information in the record, undermines both the business plan's reliability and sufficiency and that of the remainder of the record.Claims not backed by documents See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (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).
For example, the business plan states that the company would employ only one worker-a director of marketing and business development-in the United States in 2022 and that it would hire a total of 10 additional workers, including a director of sales and operations, sales representatives, warehouse workers, food engineers, and a secretary by 2027. However, the business plan also states that its 2022 payroll would include $60,000 for the director of marketing and business development and $50,000 for the director of sales and operations, despite not planning to hire the director of sales and operations until 2023. The plan indicates that those workers' salaries would increase each year to $115,000 and $105,000, respectively, in 2027. However, the Form I-140, which the Petitioner filed in November 2023 at the end of the second year of the business plan, states that the Petitioner's annual wages working as the company's advertising, promotions, and marketing manager and sales managerwhich appears to conflate two positions' titles described in the plan-would be $138,730, which exceeds the individual annual salary ofany ofthe workers described in the plan for each year it covers. The stated annual salary of $138,730 also does not match the combined salaries of the two positions whose titles the Petitioner's job title appears to conflate for any given year of the business plan. Considered as a whole, the record does not establish what the company would pay the Petitioner, what her actual job title would be, and what her actual duties would entail. This is particularly significant, given that the Petitioner's employer already employed her when she filed the Form I-290B, so it should be able to articulate that consistently rather than speculate what this information could be. Moreover, neither the business plan nor the remainder of the record clearly and consistently establishes the number of workers the Petitioner's company plans to employ in any given year, including the Petitioner.
As another example ofthe business plan's arbitrary and unsubstantiated financial information, the plan anticipates total annual revenue of $2,700,000 in 2022, increasing each year to total annual revenue of $5,300,000 in 2027, essentially doubling the company's income within a five-year period; however, the plan does not substantiate these figures. Although the plan generally describes the types of products the company would sell, it does not provide the retail or wholesale prices for any of the products or the number of products it anticipates selling at those unspecified prices in order to total the arbitrary annual revenue estimations. Relatedly, although the plan anticipates increased annual revenue over a five-year period, the plan does not elaborate on how either the prices or the number of p. 6 products sold at those prices would increase-and why they would do so-within any given year in order to substantiate the projected revenue increases.
Based on those and similar deficiencies, the business plan's financial information casts doubt on its reliability and sufficiency, and that of the remainder of the record. See id. The financial information in the business plan is material to the first Dhanasar prong because it directly addresses the waysand extent to which-the proposed endeavor may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, substantial positive economic effects, and other indicia of national importance. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Thus, the business plan would directly undermine a conclusion that the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial positive economic effects, if the Petitioner asserted so, which she does not.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
To the extent that the record may be deemed reliable and sufficient, it does not support the conclusion that, as the Petitioner claims, her company's contractual beekeeping business model entails "an 'improved manufacturing process.'" The record contains a letter of recommendation from the owner and head beekeeper of the.____________. which we address here as an example of other letters of recommendation. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory. Matter ofCaron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we may give an opinion 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.; see also Fed. R. Evid. 702 (providing that an expert opinion may "help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue," not that it is evidence of fact itself).
The letter ofrecommendation from the. _____________. owner and head beekeeper describes the contractual beekeeping business model as one in which end-product sellers like the Petitioner's employer "cut the middlemen, and they work with the beekeepers directly." The end-product sellers "provide [the beekeepers] equipment, training and education, and they give back to the beekeepers a portion of their profits," and, by eliminating intermediary companies in the supply chain, the endproduct sellers reduce "quality control and sustainability problems." We note that the record does not establish that the business model of a product seller contracting directly with suppliers is novel. Although contractual beekeeping apQears to simplify the supply chain for sellers of bee-derived end products, neither the letter from thel Iowner and head beekeeper nor the remainder of the record establish how the process of beekeeping and obtaining the honey and other substances they produce-as a matter of manufacturing-differs in contractual beekeeping as compared to other beekeeping. This logistical strategy appears to benefit the Petitioner's employer, the beekeepers who supply it, and its business partners and customers, but the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have national or even global implications within the field of beederived product commerce or any other field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes, or other indicia of national importance. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Rather, the record contains a copy of a publication from Auburn University titled "Preliminary Results from the 2023-2024 US Beekeeping Survey: Colony Loss and Management," which states, in relevant part, "the total number of honey bee colonies in the country has remained relatively stable over the last 21 years." The record also contains a copy of an article published by the p. 7 New York Times titled "The Bees Are Disappearing Again," which reports, in relevant part, "The precise causes [of bee] colony collapse . . . remain unknown." These statements and similar information in the record do not support the conclusion that a business model other than contractual beekeeping is intrinsically deficient and that contractual beekeeping will provide a solution to an unknown cause or that it will affect relatively stable numbers of total colonies in the United States over the past two decades.
We acknowledge that the record contains publications that state, for example, "Imports of Chinese honey and honey products are harmful to the U.S. domestic honey industry, and unregulated product safety can pose a threat to American consumers' health and food safety," and that the Petitioner asserts that the proposed endeavor will benefit the United States. However, the record also contains a publication from Databird Business Journal that specifically disclaims that the Petitioner's employer's "statements have not been evaluated by the Food & Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." The record does not explain how the Petitioner's employer's apparently unregulated bee-derived products do not pose similar threats to American consumers' health and food safety that unregulated Chinese honey and honey products do. Moreover, as SCOPS explained, generalized publications that address the industry, field, or profession implicated by the proposed endeavor do not inform how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national importance, such as by having national or even global implications within the field of beekeeping or any other field. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect ofthe decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iv). Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act through the issuance of a Form I-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.