The Petitioner, a sustainable design consultant, 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 classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the 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 of proof 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 ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015).
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance. Thus, she did not meet the required first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Because these identified bases for denial are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prongs. 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
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 p. 2 degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
Ifa 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
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 2 The issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
The Petitioner states that she has a bachelor of architecture and a master's degree in sustainable design from the Dominican Republic and more than 10 years of experience in sustainable architecture and urban planning. 3 She states that she has held various roles within the ministry of housing in the Dominican Republic and has served as an educator in sustainable design. She states that she intends to provide "innovative designs for sustainable urban living." She seeks to "transform urban housing solutions in the United States through the use of sustainable, recycled materials such as shipping containers."
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of her education and experience, a personal statement describing her qualifications and the field of architecture, professional licenses and certificates, and recommendation and support letters. She also submitted industry reports and articles discussing the affordable housing in the United States.
After reviewing the Petitioner's initial filing, as well as evidence submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE), SCOPS determined that the Petitioner had submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance, that she is wellpositioned to advance her proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
SCOPS stated that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have broader implications in her field of endeavor, and that the Petitioner's reliance on the importance of the field is insufficient to establish that her proposed endeavor is ofnational importance.Proposed endeavor too vague In discussing national importance, SCOPS noted that the articles and reports in the record do not discuss any details related to the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or its prospective impact. SCOPS also determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate national interest factors such as the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit of her prospective contributions to the United States, an urgent national interest in her contributions, the potential creation ofjobs, or that her self-employment does not adversely affect U.S. workers.No urgency shown
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS applied the incorrect legal standard, disregarded evidence of the proposed endeavor's broad impact, and made other legal and factual errors. The Petitioner also notes that SCOPS incorrectly referenced a different proposed endeavor than the Petitioner's, which she asserts resulted in a "material factual error in the evaluation of national importance" that "renders the legal reasoning and factual analysis fundamentally defective."
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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. As noted above, SCOPS determined that 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 other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id.
At the outset, we note that SCOPS referenced a different proposed endeavor in both the RFE and the decision. In both notices, SCOPS referenced a proposed endeavor of "providing comprehensive HR services with a specific focus on addressing domestic violence in the workplace." However, in both notices, the very next sentence references the Petitioner's correct proposed endeavor, titled "Innovative Design for Sustainable Urban Living." The Petitioner does not assert, and upon de novo p. 4 review we do not find, that this error was recurring throughout the decision or that SCOPS referenced evidence outside of the record in its analysis and decision. While we acknowledge SCOPS' error, we conclude that this error was not material to the decision, nor does it warrant a remand. See generally Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at, 350 n.5 (citingJaparkulova v. Holder, 615 F.3d 696, 701 (6th Cir. 2010) (stating that error is harmless where there is no "reason to believe that ... remand might lead to a different result" (citation omitted))). It is not enough to demonstrate errors in an agency's decision; the Petitioner must also establish that they were prejudiced by the mistakes. Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396,409 (2009); Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189,203 (2016); Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). Moreover, on appeal the Petitioner does not establish that the evidence in the record shows that her specific endeavor is of national importance. It is not enough to generally assert errors in a decision; the Petitioner must also establish that they were prejudiced by any claimed errors. Errors can be overlooked when they had no bearing on the substance of an agency's decision. See e.g., Aguilar v. Garland, 60 F.4th 401,407 (8th Cir. 2023) (citing Prohibition Juice Co. v. United States Food & Drug Admin., 45 F.4th 8, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2022)).
In her personal statement, the Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor has national importance because it will generate revenue, create jobs, and improve societal health and urban sustainability. She states that her proposed endeavor "goes beyond addressing housing challenges and extends into broader economic advantages." She farther states that "the economic ripple effect" of her proposed endeavor "will support other businesses, from construction materials suppliers and service providers to educational institutions, creating a nurturing ecosystem for various enterprises to flourish." When 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 Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to affordable housing supply and access generally, rather than her specific proposed endeavor. Although we agree that the availability of affordable housing is important to contributing to the U.S. economy and may be the subject of national initiatives, we conclude that this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. As noted above, SCOPS determined the endeavor has substantial merit, and we agree. However, the question we are examining here is national importance.
Although the Petitioner submits articles and industry reports describing affordable housing investment and proposed solutions, these reports are not specific to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.4 One article, from Housing Finance Magazine, titled "Biden Administration Unveils Housing Supply Action Plan," describes government efforts to increase the amount of affordable housing in the United States, but does not support the Petitioner's claims of the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor. Multiple federal fact sheets also discuss federal initiatives to increase the housing supply and lower housing costs. Although these fact sheets speak to the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, they do not establish her specific endeavor's potential prospective impact. Nor do the fact sheets establish how her proposed endeavor will meaningfully impact these broad initiatives. Much ofthe Petitioner's evidence relates to the initiative of affordable housing, rather than her specific proposed endeavor. Even considering the articles and reports collectively and in the 4 While we discuss a sampling of these aiiicles and rep01is, we have reviewed and considered each one. p. 5 totality ofcircumstances, we still conclude that they do not support a finding that her specific proposed endeavor has national importance.
The Petitioner also submits her business plan dated 2025 to support the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 5 In her business plan, the Petitioner states that she will personally invest $190,000 to start a company to support her proposed endeavor, "to revolutionize the U.S. Housing Industry by providing innovative, affordable, and sustainable housing solutions through the use of recycled shipping containers." She states that she will be the owner and head of operations of a "modular housing enterprise based in Florida" that will "specialize in the construction of durable, low-cost, and energy efficient homes made from recycled shipping containers." The Petitioner's personnel plan includes hiring a total of 13 employees within the first five years of operation. The Petitioner's financial forecast indicates total sales of $1.9 million within five years, with a net profit of $186,621. The Petitioner's business plan also addresses indirect job creation utilizing the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) multipliers for the "Architectural, engineering, and related services" industry in Florida. According to the RIMS II multipliers, the Petitioner asserted that her proposed endeavor would "[g]enerate direct effects on employment equivalent to 31 jobs in Year 5, as it will reach a total of 13 in-house employees in the same year" and "[g]enerate direct effects on earnings of household equivalent to $1,583,939.68 in Year 5, as its payroll will reach $854,060 in the same year." However, the Petitioner does not elaborate on the 31 indirect jobs the RIMS II calculation anticipates her company will create, such as the type ofjobs those would be, a breakdown ofpart-time versus full-time positions, and where they would be created. Without more detailed, credible evidence of the types of jobs that would be created and where the jobs would be located, the record does not establish that employing the services listed in the business plan would show the type of substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong.Job creation or economic claims unsupported See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90.
As noted, to establish national importance, the Petitioner must demonstrate the proposed endeavor's impact. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. at 889. Although the Petitioner states that her proposed endeavor will contribute to economic growth, she has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence. The Petitioner does not explain how her company's revenue ($1.9 million) and job creation (13 employees) as stated in the business plan support her claim that her "business model will make a significant impact not only on Florida's housing sector but also on the U.S. economy at large." The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use ofthe Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting her own company and clients or have broader implications within the field of sustainable design and urban planning.Benefits limited to an employer or its clients The record does not establish that her proposed endeavor stands to impact the field as a whole. In an attempt to support the claimed narona) importance of her proposed endeavoj, the Petitioner references an expert opinion prepared by~---------------~ As a matter of 5 We note that the Petitioner's business plan is dated May 2025, one year after the filing of this petition. However, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(12). See Matter ofKatigbak, 14 l&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). p. 6 discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 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.
We acknowledge that the expert opinion includes an analysis of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In his analysis! Uiscusses the Petitioner's academic and professional background. I Istates, "[The Petitioner's] work in sustainable urban development holds significant potential to address one of the most pressing challenges facing the U.S. today: the need for affordable, sustainable housing." I Isummarily concludes from the importance of the affordable housing initiatives that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is nationally important. This conclusion ignores the requirements ofDhanasar. It is not the importance ofthe 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889 . ._______.lalso states that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers and has other substantial positive economic effects ... The economic impact of this initiative extends beyond the direct employment created through construction and design, influencing broader industries such as manufacturing, logistics, and material supply chains ... creating a ripple effect that stimulates economic growth in multiple areas." I Ievaluation of national importance primarily focuses on a general explanation of the cost effectiveness of using recycled and reused materials and the importance of creating affordable housing opportunities. From there, he generalizes that, as the Petitioner plans to use recycled shipping containers to develop housing units, she will have the various impacts noted above. This conclusion lacks sufficient analytical support, and it conflates alignment with national initiatives with the endeavor's importance. I ldoes not explain how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor impacts the field beyond the individual companies she will partner with or how her endeavor would have an economic impact on par with national importance. Id. at 889-90.
On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon the evidence she previously submitted and asserts that SCOPS did not fully consider all of the evidence in the record. We acknowledge the Petitioner's appellate claims that SCOPS did not duly consider certain pieces of evidence, specifically, her business plan. However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how any documents from SCOPS' discussion demonstrated eligibility. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence a petitioner presents. See Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1 st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973,976 (1st Cir. 1992)). The Petitioner continues to rely upon the asserted merits of the services she will provide, her personal and professional qualities and achievements, and the importance of affordable housing generally. However, as set forth above, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further discussion of the balancing factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining Dhanasar prongs. 6 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 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.
NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect of the 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 ofthe Act through the issuance of a Form 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.