The Petitioner 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 EB-2 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 Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she had not established 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.
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.
Law
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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.
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. 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 indicated that she intends "to open a Financial Management Consulting, Advisory and Training Office, and it will be headquartered in the I I region, Florida." She further stated: "This business will offer professional services in financial planning, control, reporting, balance sheet analysis, risk assessment, market economic trends and financial auditing."
In addition, the Petitioner submitted the business plan for her proposed company. This business plan includes industry and market analyses, information about her company and its services, financial forecasts and projections, marketing strategies, a discussion of the Petitioner's work experience, and a description of company personnel. Regarding future staffing, the Petitioner's business plan anticipates that her company will employ five personnel in year one, six in years two and three, and eight in years four and five, but she did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees.Plan or projections not corroborated Furthermore, while her plan offers revenue projections of $591,360 in year one, $792,000 in years two and three, $1,182,720 in years four and five, these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved.
The record includes information about the U.S. financial advisory industry, job prospects in the United States for financial managers, Florida employment trends, immigrants as economic contributors, and the value of small businesses to the U.S. economy. Here, the Director concluded that the submitted information establishes the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit. In determining national importance, however, the relevant question is not the value of small businesses, financial management services, immigrant entrepreneurship, or the Petitioner's general occupation; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."Proposed endeavor too vague See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential prospective impact ofher specific proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner also provided letters of support from A-M-, C-A-, M-E-S-, L-R-A-, T-A-B-, A-C-MC-, P-G-A-, V-S-F-, and L-B- discussing her financial management capabilities and experience. The Petitioner's education, skills, knowledge, and prior work in her field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong.
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted an "Expert Opinion Letter" from J-W-B-, a professor of finance at I I in support of her national interest waiver. J-W-B- contended that the Petitioner's proposed work is of national importance because her generic occupation of financial manager, the management consulting industry, and the financial advisory services industry stand to contribute to our nation's economy, enhance societal welfare, and advance White House initiatives (such as attracting "STEM talent"). The issue here, however, is not the national 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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The letter from J-W-B- does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work operating a financial management company offers broader implications in her industry, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that rise to the level of national importance.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her undertaking has national implications within a particular field or industry. In addition, the Director indicated that the Petitioner had not shown that her proposed work "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation." In her appeal brief: the Petitioner argues that "financial manager consulting is a critical function for companies around the world, including in the United States," and it contributes "to the success and survival of companies." She further indicates that "[f]inancial manager consulting can help a company maximize its profits, manage its debt and investments, make long-term strategic decisions, and ensure compliance with applicable financial laws and regulations," but these arguments address the value ofher occupation in general rather than the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor. Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts that her company plans on "hiring 8 professionals" and stands to "generate from 16.61 to 59.93 indirect jobs." She also claims that her proposed endeavor offers supply chain potential, a source of government tax revenue, knowledge transfer to her employees, and other positive economic effects. Moreover, the Petitioner states that she will devote "5% of my future company's budget ... to carry out cultural and social actions in the local community." The Petitioner, however, has not provided evidence demonstrating that her proposed business and community activities 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.No broader implications shown Furthermore, while any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact the economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential economic activity of her specific endeavor stands to generate substantial positive economic effects in the region where her company will operate or in other parts of the United States.
In addition, the Petitioner contends that her undertaking "helps to ensure the long-term sustainability" of "Florida's hospitals and eye clinics," contributes "to the industry's economic growth and generating highquality jobs," and "will play a key role for both Florida and the United States in terms of financial sustainability, operational efficiency and supporting the growth of these specific sectors." She further asserts that her proposed endeavor stands to strengthen the health sector, support the growth and success of consulting firms, and improve financial transparency and governance.
In determining national importance, we explained in Dhanasar 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. We also stated that "[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." Id. at 890.
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 refl ect her intention to provide valuable financial management services to her company's clients, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 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 future clientele to impact her field, the financial services industry, the U.S. economy, or U.S. societal welfare more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
Furthermore, 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. While the Petitioner claims that her company has growth potential, 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. In addition, although the Petitioner asserts that her endeavor "has the potential to employ workers both directly and indirectly," she has not offered sufficient evidence that her endeavor offers Florida or the United States a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding her eligibility under the third prong 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe 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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.