The Petitioner, a consultant seeking to improve production and efficiency in the U.S. electric-vehicle (EV) industry, requests classification under the employment-based, second-preference (EB-2) immigrant visa category and a waiver of the category's job-offer requirement. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has discretion to excuse job offers - and thus the need for certifications from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) - if petitioners for U.S. permanent residence in this category demonstrate that waivers of the U.S.-worker protections would be "in the national interest." Id.; see also Brasil v. Sec'y, Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. , 28 F.4th 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 2022) (holding that national interest waivers are discretionary benefits).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition. SCOPS found the Petitioner eligible for EB-2 classification and that his proposed U.S. work has "substantial merit." But SCOPS concluded that he did not demonstrate that a waiver would ultimately serve the national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that, in finding insufficient evidence of his proposed endeavor's "national importance," his "well positioning" to advance it, and a waiver's overall benefit to the United States, SCOPS misinterpreted and overlooked evidence and raised evidentiary standards.
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010).
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015), we agree with SCOPS that he did not establish the claimed national importance of his proposed endeavor. We will therefore dismiss the appeal.
Law
To demonstrate eligibility for national interest waivers, petitioners must first establish their qualifications for the EB-2 category, either as members ofthe professions holding "advanced degrees," or as aliens of "exceptional ability" in the sciences, arts, or business. See section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. To protect jobs for U.S. workers, this immigrant visa category generally requires prospective U.S. employers to offer aliens work and to obtain DOL certifications to permanently employ them in the country. See section 212(a)(5)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(a)(5)(D). Petitioners may avoid the p. 2 job-offer and labor-certification requirements by demonstrating that waivers of the U.S.-worker protections would be "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act.
Neither the Act nor regulations define the term "national interest." So, to adjudicate these waiver requests, we have established a framework. If otherwise qualified as advanced degree professionals or aliens of exceptional ability, petitioners may warrant waivers ofthe job-offer and labor-certification requirements by demonstrating that:
- Their proposed U.S. work has "substantial merit" and "national importance;"
- They are "well positioned" to advance their intended endeavors; and
- On balance, waivers of the job-offer and labor certification requirements would benefit the United States.
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889-91 (AAO 2016); see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(5)(D)(l), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual.
Analysis
A. The Petitioner and His Proposed Endeavor
The record shows that a Mexican university awarded the Petitioner a bachelor's degree in industrial and systems engineering. He has about 20 years' experience in transportation manufacturing. For the past seven years, he has worked in the United States, largely as a manufacturing engineer manager for U.S. EV makers. Since July 2024, he has served as director of operations and systems improvements for a consulting and engineering company, helping the firm's clients improve their operations. The Petitioner proposes to continue working in the transportation manufacturing field in the United States. He stated that he seeks: to catalyze the industrialization and advancement of electric-driven products and vehicles in the U.S. market, with a focus on decarbonizing the domestic transportation sector and promoting energy efficiency associated with fossil fuels in personal and commercial vehicles through comprehensive industrial optimization plans.
The Petitioner stated that he plans to establish a U.S. consulting firm, "assembl[ing] a consortium of experts and lead[ing] an all-disciplinary team of specialists and engineers with expertise in Dimensional Engineering, Welding Engineering, Quality Engineering, Ergonomics, Industrial Engineering, and Logistics." He stated that, in its first five years, the business would incur total costs of $780,000. The Petitioner said that, in its fifth year, the company would "achieve significant revenue growth." But he did not provide details or estimates of the business's proposed revenues or number of employees.
The record supports SCOPS' finding that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional with a bachelor's degree followed by at least five years of progressive employment experience in his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) ( defining the term "advanced degree"). p. 3 The record also supports SCOPS' finding that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit. We will next review SCOPS' determination regarding his endeavor's claimed national importance.
B. National Importance
When determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, USCIS must focus on the particular venture, specifically on its "potential prospective impact." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. "An undertaking may have national importance, for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. Also,"[ 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."Job creation or economic claims unsupported Id. at 890.
Ultimately, if the evidence ofrecord demonstrates that the person's proposed endeavor has the significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, or to contribute to the advancement of a valuable technology or field of study, it may rise to the level of national importance.
of decision reached.'") ( citation omitted); see generally Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 T&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) ( citing cases regarding harmless or scrivener's errors). Rather, consistent with Dhanasar and USCIS policy, the decision concludes that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his venture "[ w Jill have broader implications, or national or global implications within a particular field."No broader implications shown The Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor has national importance because "[h ]is work to advance the industrialization and commercialization of electric-driven products and vehicles in the U.S. market addresses critical national concerns such as decarbonization, energy efficiency, and supply chain resilience." He asserts that SCOPS overlooked expert letters demonstrating his endeavor's broad implications. For example, he notes that an advanced cell engineer at a U.S. auto manufacturer stated that the Petitioner's "initiative to advance the industrialization ofelectric-powered products and vehicles promises to make a profound impact on the domestic transportation sector and accelerate the transition to sustainable transportation."
Addressing critical national concerns, however, does not alone demonstrate an endeavor's national importance. For example, in Dhanasar, the petitioner proposed to teach U.S. university courses in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. We agreed with him that "STEM teaching has substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational interests." Id. But we concluded that he did not demonstrate the endeavor's purported national importance because he did not establish that he "would be engaged in activities that would impact the field of STEM education more broadly." Id.
As in Dhanasar, the Petitioner's EV consulting endeavor would address national concerns. But, also as in Dhanasar, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his venture would have broader implications beyond his consultancy and its clients. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3) ("Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance. At issue is whether the petitioner can demonstrate that the person's own individual endeavor stands to have broader implications, such as for a field, a region, or the public at large.")
Also, the expert letters that the Petitioner submitted primarily discuss his past accomplishments in his field. They do not detail his proposed endeavor or explain how the venture would more broadly affect his field or the national economy. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3) ("[P]etitioners should submit ... supporting documentary evidence to establish that the endeavor is of national importance.") The Petitioner argues that SCOPS carelessly examined evidence regarding his proposed consulting business. The RFE found: "Individually tailored products or services help serve specific needs of an organization or client, but by nature, they do not represent broadly applicable measures that a wide range of organizations or clients can readily adopt." The Petitioner concedes that he would customize his services "to address each client's unique needs." But he states that his methodologies, technologies, and staff training programs would have "broad applicability and adaptability across the entire U.S. [EV] manufacturing sector" because they "are scalable and replicable." He states: "By disseminating his industrialization optimization plans through strategic partnerships and creating a consortium of experts to provide integrated turnkey solutions, [he] is advancing best practices that can be adopted by a wide range of organizations."
The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently substantiated the purported potential sector-wide effect ofhis proposed services. The record does not explain how his consulting business would serve enough U.S. EV manufacturers to impact the sector or otherwise make his purported improvements available to the field. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3) ("Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance.")
The Petitioner also contends that SCOPS "conflated" his proposed business and its services with his proposed endeavor. The RFE stated: "While the petitioner's plan describes the scope of the products or services he intends to provide or perform, it does not sufficiently show how they extend beyond the ... the persons or entities utilizing them." The Petitioner argues: "The products and services that [he] intends to provide or perform and the business he will create are merely the means by which [he] will advance his proposed endeavor - they are not the endeavor itself." He states:
The adjudicating officer's focus on the scope of [his] product and services and on if his business will contribute to broader economic development is misguided and acts in direct contravention of precedent guidelines. Any inappropriate conflation between the proposed endeavor and the associated products or services would serve to the direct disadvantage of [him] and again manifest as an abuse of discretion on the part of the adjudicating officer and through the use of a novel or unique criterion to serve as a bar from approving a petition.
( emphasis in original).
Under USCTS policy, "a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types ofwork the person proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3) (emphasis added). Also:
[ w ]hen explaining the endeavor, the petitioner should do so in a straightforward manner and clearly lay out the potential direct impacts of the endeavor and whether the endeavor will be fitrthered through the course of the person 's duties at a particular employer or some other way.
Id. ( emphasis added). Further: "In determining national importance, the officer's analysis focuses on what the person will be doing rather than the specific job title or occupational classification." (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to the Petitioner's argument, SCOPS' consideration of how he would pursue his endeavor aligns with USCTS policy.
The Petitioner also criticizes SCOPS for focusing on the "scale of [his] endeavor." The RFE stated: "USCTS cannot conclude the scale of the endeavor will broadly impact the field or the electric vehicle manufacturing industry at a level that rises to that of having national importance." The Petitioner notes that "[ o ]fficers should focus on the nature of the proposed endeavor, rather than only the geographic breadth of the endeavor." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3). He therefore argues that "the national importance must be assessed considering the endeavor itself and its implications and must not be disregarded based on the scale of the undertaking."
But the scale of the Petitioner's proposed undertaking affects its implications. He must show that the purported benefits of his consulting services would reach beyond his business and its customers to potentially affect his field or the national economy. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3) ("At issue is whether the petitioner can demonstrate that the person's own individual endeavor stands to have broader implications, such as for a field, a region, or the public at large.") Thus, SCOPS did not err in considering the scale of his endeavor.
The Petitioner describes SCOPS' analysis of an expert letter as "highly concerning" and "arriv[ing] at prejudicial conclusions that appear to stem either from a deliberate disregard or a careless examination of the evidence." The RFE stated that the expert letter indicated that the Petitioner's prior work "primarily benefit[ed]" the employer and "does not establish [that] the petitioner's work, research or otherwise, would extend beyond the employer and rise to a level . . . commensurate with having national importance." The Petitioner contends that "the content of the letter directly contradicts the officer's assessment and conclusionary statements."Inconsistencies in the record He notes that the letter states that his endeavor "will be instrumental in advancing sustainable solutions, reducing the country's reliance on fossil fuels, and promoting eco-friendly transportation options."
The letter, however, does not describe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in detail nor specifically explain how it would have national implications. See Matter ofCaron Int 'l, Inc., 19 T&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) ( explaining that the immigration service may reject or afford lesser weight to expert testimony that conflicts with other information "or is in any way questionable"). Thus, SCOPS did not have to give the letter full evidentiary weight.
We agree with the Petitioner that part of SCOPS' decision misapplied Dhanasar's prong-two factors to its national importance analysis. Specifically, to show his proposed endeavor's significance, SCOPS expected him to submit a record of success and evidence of U.S. interest in his undertaking. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890 (identifying a "record of success" and "the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals" as relevant factors in determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor). The Petitioner argues:
This misapplication not only undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process but also constitutes a failure on the part of the adjudicating officer to adhere to their duty to apply the law and regulations in a fair and impartial manner.
The Petitioner, however, has not otherwise demonstrated the claimed national importance of his proposed venture. Thus, the decision's misapplication of Dhanasar prong-two factors to national importance evidence is harmless. See Animal Legal Def Fund, 789 F.3d at 1224 n.13; see generally Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at 336 n.5.
The Petitioner contends that SCOPS's decision "fundamental[ly]" misunderstood and misapplied Dhanasar. The decision stated:
While most of the business plan appears to support local initiatives and contribute to the needs of local communities and his clients, the evidence presented does not sufficiently establish that the proposed endeavor will provide a benefit that is national p. 7 in scope . ... [T]he petitioner has not provided any concrete, verifiable examples or evidence demonstrating how the beneficiaries' contributions can have a substantial, demonstratable impact on the United States as a whole.
( emphasis added). The Petitioner notes that Dhanasar rejected the prior "national in scope" requirement for national interest waiver petitions and instead substituted the broader "national importance" standard. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 887, 889-90. He states: "The officer's reliance on outdated terminology and narrow geographic considerations is inconsistent with the controlling precedent and fails to account for the proper analysis required under Dhanasar." The decision, however, does not indicate that SCOPS applied any geographical limitations to its national importance analysis. The decision correctly quotes Dhanasar' s national importance standard, stating that a nationally important endeavor may have "national or even global implications within a particular field" or "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial economic effects." See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Thus, the record indicates that SCOPS' use of the phrase "national in scope" reflects merely a poor choice of outdated terminology and not application of an outdated requirement.
The Petitioner contends that SCOPS improperly discounted various articles and reports he submitted about the U.S. EV industry. He argues that this evidence "demonstrates that his endeavor impacts a matter that government entities have described as having national importance, as specifically requested by the adjudicating officer in the RFE."
As previously indicated, however, work in a nationally important field does not alone demonstrate an endeavor's national importance. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893 (holding that, despite the national importance of STEM education, teaching STEM courses at a U.S. university was not nationally important where it did not impact the field "more broadly"). The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated broad implications of his proposed consulting firm on his field or the national economy.
Also, the RFE appears to have meant to request any letters from interested government agencies. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(5) ("[L]etters from an interested government agency or quasigovernmental entity could prove favorable for purposes ofthe first prong it: for example, they establish that the agency or entity has expertise in the proposed endeavor and that the proposed STEM endeavor promises to advance a critical and emerging technology or is otherwise important for purposes of maintaining the United States' technological prominence.") The Petitioner did not submit any such letters.
The Petitioner argues that his proposed endeavor would have national economic importance, as the city where he would establish his consulting business has 42 designated "opportunity zones."1 He contends that his business would directly support the city's redevelopment "[b ]y creating jobs and fostering innovation in the EV manufacturing industry." See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890 ("An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 1 The record indicates that opportunity zones are census tracts designated under federal law to meet specific low-income community criteria. p. 8 economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance.")
As previously indicated, however, the Petitioner has not detailed or estimated how many jobs or how much revenue his proposed consulting business would generate. Also, he has not explained how many clients he would serve in the city or its region. Thus, the record lacks sufficient evidence that his proposed endeavor would generate substantial economic benefits for the city or its region in a nationally important way.
The Petitioner argues that SCOPS "did not contemplate or discuss the totality of the evidence submitted to prove the national importance of [his] proposed endeavor." He therefore contends that SCOPS' national importance determination is "flawed, amounting to an abuse of discretion." But administrative agencies need not discuss each piece of evidence. Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted) (stating that where an agency "has given reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings, we will not require that it address specifically each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence the petitioner presented"). Also, at the decision's beginning, SCOPS stated that it reviewed and considered each document submitted. The Petitioner has not disproved SCOPS' statement by demonstrating that any of the non-discussed evidence establishes the claimed national importance of his proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has national importance. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial.
C. The Remaining Dhanasar Requirements
To obtain a national interest waiver, a petitioner must satisfy all three prongs ofour Dhanasar analysis. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Because the Petitioner did not demonstrate the claimed national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong, we need not determine whether he met the remaining two prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions). We will therefore reserve consideration of his arguments that he is well position to advance his proposed endeavor and that, all things considered, a waiver would benefit the United States.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed U.S. endeavor has national importance. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial.
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 I-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings p. 9 may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.