The Petitioner, a business executive, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 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 concluded that 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.
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. 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 found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. However, 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 id.
The Petitioner described the endeavor generally as a plan "to leverage my expertise in AI and educational technology to establish a successful business in the United States that will significantly increase the quality, accessibility and affordability of education and educational content in the U.S. and worldwide." He submitted a business plan, which clarifies that the Petitioner will operate a startup company based in I ICalifornia, that will offer "a real-time, AI-powered interaction channel between educators and their audience." More specifically, the plan asserts that the company will create digital representations of its clients, who can then use the digital representations of them on their respective websites, "offering students the ability to ask questions, engage in voice or text conversations, and interact with the uploaded information in innovative ways, 24/7," using artificial intelligence. The plan indicates that target customers during the first year of operations would be "educators and content creators" located California but that the business would seek clients in all U.S. states, and abroad, in subsequent years.
The business plan states that the company would employ 10 workers in its first year of operations, expanding to 38 workers by its fifth year of operations. The plan identifies the Petitioner as the chief executive officer, with other initial position titles including a chief technology officer, chief product officer, various engineers, and a marketing manager, with similar position titles in the following years. The business plan provides arbitrary and unsubstantiated financial information that casts doubt on its veracity, undermining the reliability and sufficiency of both it and the remainder of the record.Claims not backed by documents See Matter of Ho, 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 generally references three different product "plan" levels with prices of $9.99, $49.99, and $99.99, and estimated unit sales of 66,000, 30,600, and 30,000, respectively, in the first year of operations, increasing to 836,000, 676,200, and 627,600, respectively, in the fifth year of operations. However, neither the business plan nor the remainder of the record establish why the company anticipates such specific numbers of unit sales for the various product plans in any of the years ofoperations, and why it anticipates such specific growth in unit sales over the five years of operations. Stated another way, neither the business plan nor the remainder of the record establish why the company anticipates selling 126,600 Californian "educators and content creators" digital representations of themselves in the company's first year of operations, and the sales growth that the plan projects in the years that follow. Moreover, despite different product plan names and prices, neither the business plan nor the remainder of the record establishes how the different product plans-with wide price differences-vary from each other, in order to convey reasons why a client may opt to pay the Petitioner's company $99.99 instead of $49.99 or $9.99. p. 3 Relatedly, the business plan inexplicably anticipates both the unit prices noted above and unit costsof $4.50, $18, and $66, respectively-to remain flat through all five years of operations, despite the company nearly quadrupling its workforce size, which likely will lead to operating expense changes, and external factors such as inflation and cost-of-living increases.
As another example of arbitrary and unsubstantiated financial information, the business plan anticipates relatively flat annual rent and utilities expenses throughout the five years of operations, beginning at $36,000 and $2,400, respectively, increasing to $43,758 and $2,917, respectively, despite the company's workforce nearly quadrupling in the interim. Other financial information in the plan is similarly arbitrary and relatively flat, despite the company's anticipated growth in staffing and operations.
The business plan's financial information is material to determining national importance because it directly addresses whether-and the extent to which-the endeavor may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. The business plan's arbitrary and unsubstantiated financial information casts doubt on the plan's veracity, undermining the reliability and sufficiency of both it and the remainder of the record. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591.
The Petitioner also submitted statements from himself and a professor of computer science, and letters of recommendation or appreciation.
SCOPS determined that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required in part by the first Dhanasar prong. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. However, SCOPS also concluded that the record does not establish the proposed endeavor has national importance, as also required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. More specifically, SCOPS found that the record does not establish how the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor may have "implications beyond the business, its employees and clients, and any individuals and entities with whom he would work, to impact the field, industry, or the economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance."No broader implications shown SCOPS acknowledged the business plan's employment information; however, SCOPS noted that the record does not establish the significance of employing those numbers of workers in the given occupational categories inl ICalifornia. SCOPS also observed that the record "does not show how the [P]etitioner's techniques, methodologies, or methods are sufficiently innovative or distinct from those in similar businesses, to represent an improvement in the field with the potential to have a broad impact on the field." SCOPS further determined 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 asserts that the proposed endeavor "directly aligns with federal priorities," referencing an unspecified executive order dated April 2025, and "the Department of Education's p. 4 long-standing goal of using technology to expand access to quality education." He also opines, "Advances in educational technology are, by their very nature, nationally significant." He also states that SCOPS incorrectly considered his proposed endeavor as limited to its immediate users, and that the record contains information "about the platform's potential to transform education at scale." 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 take administrative notice that approximately three dozen executive orders are dated April 2025. See White House, Presidential Actions, Executive Orders, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ presidential-actions/executive-orders/. The Petitioner does not provide sufficient information on appeal to establish which of those executive orders he references. Similarly, although the Petitioner generally asserts that the Department of Education has had a "long-standing goal of using technology to expand access to quality education," he does not support his generalization with evidence of that goal. Therefore, the record does not substantiate the Petitioner's discussion ofan April 2025 executive order and the claimed Department of Education policy, and we need not address them farther. Next, the Petitioner's conclusory statement on appeal that "Advances in educational technology are, by their very nature, nationally significant" is unpersuasive. As noted, the relevant question for determining whether the specific endeavor a petitioner proposes to undertake may have national importance is not whether an industry, field, or profession related to the endeavor may have national importance. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Thus, the question here is not whether the proposed endeavor entails advancing educational technology. Rather, we consider whether the specific endeavor a petitioner proposes to undertake may have broader implications indicative of national importance, such as national or even global implications within a particular field, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive economic effects, beyond merely being in a STEM field, such as educational technology. See id.
Addressing the Petitioner's assertions on appeal regarding statements in the record from him and a professor of computer science, and letters of recommendation and appreciation, we note again that the reliability and sufficiency of information in the record in general is undermined by the doubt cast by the business plan's arbitrary and unsubstantiated claims about financial information, for the reasons explained above.Support letters generic or unsupported See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. To the extent that the letters may be deemed reliable and sufficient, they do not establish that the proposed endeavor may have national importance. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, 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 letters the Petitioner submitted at the time he filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, opine favorably about his qualifications; however, they do not address the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and they bear minimal probative value for understanding evidence in the record or determining a fact in issue regarding whether the endeavor may have national importance. See Matter o_fCaron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795; see also Fed. R. Evid. 702. Similarly, the letter from a professor of computer science that the Petitioner submitted in response to SCOPS' request for evidence states that the author's opinions are based, in part, on his review of the Petitioner's business plan. However, as explained above, the business plan is unreliable and insufficient; therefore, the professor of computer science's opinions that are based on the business plan are questionable. Therefore, we give the professor of computer science's opinions less weight. See Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795; see also Fed. R. Evid. 702. To the extent that the professor ofcomputer science's opinion letter may have probative value despite the evidentiary issues addressed above, it provides little information that may help us understand evidence or determine a fact in issue. Rather, it repeats information already in the record, it addresses generalized information attenuated from the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake, and it references information outside the record.Proposed endeavor too vague In tum, we acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted his own personal statements regarding the proposed endeavor; however, he does not substantiate his statements with objective evidence. See, e.g., Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76 (providing that petitioners must establish claims are more likely than not true).
To the extent that the record may be deemed reliable and sufficient, it indicates that the Petitioner's proposal to develop digital representations of his company's clients to interface with their students or other users using artificial intelligence may benefit the Petitioner's company, its clients and business partners, and their clients. However, the record does not substantiate estimations for the extent of the Petitioner's company's clients and their clients, as addressed above. The record also does not establish how the digital representations of clients using artificial intelligence may have national or even global implications in the field of computer science, education, or any other field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes, rather than providing computer program user interface features similar to other products. See Matter o_f Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. The record furthermore does not indicate the significance of employing the stated number of workers in the given occupational categories in I LCalifornia, in order to demonstrate significant p. 6 potential to employ U.S. workers. See id. In particular, given the unreliability and insufficiency of the business plan's financial information, the record does not otherwise show how the proposed endeavor may have substantial positive economic effects.Job creation or economic claims unsupported See id. Considered in its entirety, the record does not establish how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. See id.
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 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.