The Petitioner, a business operations specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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. § 1153(b)(2).
SCOPS denied the petition. SCOPS determined that the Petitioner does not qualify as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability. SCOPS also 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 ofChristo '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) of the 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
As noted above, SCOPS found that the Petitioner does not qualify for second preference classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability. SCOPS further concluded that the record does not satisfy any of the Dhanasar prongs, of which all must be met. 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 Petitioner qualifies for second preference classification and 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). 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 as a plan to operate a business administration consulting services company based generally "in Florida . . . providing services like startup business consultations, business plans, lender meetings, financial analysis, and marketing consultations ... to small and medium-sized companies, across various states in the U.S."
The Petitioner also submitted a document titled "Business Plan - Proposed Endeavor," referencing the Petitioner and his business administration consulting services company's name on the first page. However, the purported business plan does not convey a plan for the Petitioner's business. Rather, the document contains a disclaimer that it consists of "information derived from public sources that have not been independently verified," and most ofthe document merely describes consulting services in general, supplemented with a duplicate copy of the Petitioner's resume, which appears elsewhere in the record. The purported business plan contains language that appears to be designed to sell services to the reader, rather than expressing the Petitioner's plan to operate his business, such as: "As a result, management consulting can be an effective way to improve the performance of your business and attract investors."
The "Financial Plan" section does not appear to provide information about the actual financial plan for the Petitioner's business administration consulting services company. 2 It contains instructional language, such as "At a minimum, this section should include estimated start-up costs and projected 2 The purported business plan also is internally inconsistent.Inconsistencies in the record The table of contents indicates that both "Competitive Landscape" and "Financial Analysis" will be two consecutive sections numbered "6," followed by a copy of the Petitioner's resume as section "7." However, the body of the document follows "6- Competitive Landscape" with "7-Market Opportunities &Future Trends," not "Financial Analysis" or the Petitioner's resume. Rather, between "7- Market Opportunities &Future Trends" and a copy of the Petitioner's resume in an unnumbered section is a section labeled "1. Financial Plan," not "6. Financial Analysis," as the table of contents indicates. p. 3 profit and loss, along with a summary of the assumptions being made with these projections." It also contains language that appears to be from a boilerplate template, such as "Your Office-Based Agency" at the top of a financial table instead of identifying the name of the Petitioner's startup business administration consulting services company. The time period for the financial plan is unclear, given that each row under the column heading of"Months" is blank. Although some rows under the column heading of"Total Cost" appear to display the product of 12 months multiplied by amounts listed under the column heading of "Cost/Month," some 'Total Cost" calculations do not reflect additional "OneTime Cost" figures that would be added to the annual total of monthly costs.
Setting aside the Financial Plan section's vague and apparently incomplete information, it consists of arbitrary and unsubstantiated figures, which conflict with other information in the record.Claims not backed by documents For example, the Petitioner indicated on the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, in Part 6. Basic Information About the Proposed Employment, that he would pay himself an annual wage of $75,990. However, the Financial Plan section reports that the "Cost/Month" for "Employee Salaries" would be $2,000 with a "Total Cost" of $24,000, plus a "One-Time Cost" of $2,000. Neither the purported business plan nor the remainder of the record clarifies what the one-time $2,000 employee salary expense would be and why it is omitted from the "Total Cost" calculation, if the "Total Cost" calculation is intended to reflect an annual total. More to the point, neither the purported business plan nor the remainder of the record reconciles how the Petitioner would pay himself an annual wage of$75,990, as he indicated on the Form I-140, if his company's business plan anticipates annual "Employee Salaries" expenses totaling only $24,000, which is substantially less.
As another example of arbitrary and unsubstantiated figures, the Financial Plan indicates that "Your Office-Based Agency" would receive monthly revenue in the amount of $2,000 per month from January through June and $3,000 per month from July through December, totaling $30,000 annual revenue. However, neither the purported business plan nor the remainder of the record elaborate on what the Petitioner would charge for any particular consulting service, the number of clients he anticipates in a given month to pay him the stated revenue, and in general the reasons why the document anticipates those specific and relatively flat revenue figures each month. Moreover, we note that total annual revenue in the amount of $30,000 would be less than half of the annual wages the Petitioner stated on the Form 1-140 that he would pay himself: regardless of other operating expenses. Furthermore, the Financial Plan section calculates that the company would operate at an annual loss of $700, even with its arbitrary and unsubstantiated figures, which casts doubt on whether the Petitioner's startup business administration consulting services company would be financially viable. As another example of arbitrary and unsubstantiated financial figures, the plan reports that "Your Office-Based Agency" would incur a one-time "Postage/Shipping" expense of $100, but neither the document nor the remainder of the record establishes what the company would ship only one time and why doing so would cost exactly $100. The purported business plan includes other, similar arbitrary, unsubstantiated, and inconsistent financial information, such as an implausible indication that the Petitioner's business administration consulting service's rent and utilities expenses would total $0, without farther explanation.
The extent of the unsubstantiated, arbitrary, and inconsistent financial information in the purported business plan cast doubt on its veracity, undermining the reliability and sufficiency of both it and the remainder of the record. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (providing that doubt p. 4 cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support ofthe visa petition). The financial information in the purported business plan is material to determining whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance because it directly relates to whether the proposed endeavor may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers-or the potential to employ U.S. workers at all-and the extent to which it may have other substantial positive economic effects. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889-90. Because the purported business plan's reliability and sufficiency is undermined, it bears minimal probative value. See Matter ofHo, 19 l&N Dec. at 591.
The Petitioner submitted a "revised & integrated version" of the business plan dated July 2025 in response to SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE). However, a petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 l&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter ofIzwnmi, 22 l&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998).
The business plan the Petitioner submitted in response to SCOPS' RFE presents a set of material facts that did not exist at the time he filed the Form 1-140 in June 2024. For example, the revised plan reports that the company's annual revenue for the first year of operations would be $75,000, not $30,000 as the prior, purported business plan indicates, increasing to $125,000 and $200,000 in the second and third years of operations, respectively. Because the revised plan presents a set of facts that did not exist at the time the Petitioner filed the Form 1-140, it cannot-and does not-establish eligibility, and we need not address it farther. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 l&N Dec. at 49; Matter of Izummi, 22 l&N Dec. at 176. We note, however, that even with the revised annual revenue of $75,000 in the first year of operations, the company would not raise sufficient revenue to pay the Petitioner the annual wage of $75,990 he reported he would pay himself on the Form 1-140, in addition to the company's other operating expenses.
The Petitioner also submitted letters of recommendation and publications that provide generalized information regarding business administration.Support letters generic or unsupported
SCOPS concluded that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required in part by the first Dhanasar prong. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889-90. However, SCOPS determined that the record does not establish whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, as also required in part by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. More specifically, SCOPS noted the purported business plan lacks details material to the proposed endeavor. SCOPS observed that the record does not establish the proposed endeavor's potential to create U.S. jobs or how it may have other substantial positive economic effects.Job creation or economic claims unsupported SCOPS noted that letters of recommendation in the record describe his experience and skill, but they do not establish how the proposed endeavor may have national importance. SCOPS also explained that the publications that provide generalized information regarding business administration but they do not address the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake and how it may have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong.Proposed endeavor too vague See id. Considering the record as a whole, SCOPS concluded that the record does not establish "whether the work of a single business owner, regardless of its success or failure, would have a significant impact on the field beyond its immediate sphere of p. 5 influence" or "how the [P]etitioner's specific endeavor stands to affect or advance the broader industry, or that it otherwise has wider implications in the field."Past record does not show influence or success
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that the proposed endeavor has national importance. He references his prior work experience, including revenue a prior employer generated while it employed the Petitioner, and an approximate number of prior coworkers the Petitioner has hired and trained throughout his employment history. He also repeats information in the revised business plan he submitted in response to SCOPS' RFE, noted above. He offers statistical information about Turkish immigration to the United States, although he does not substantiate that information with documentary evidence. He also discusses letters in the record and the publications that provide generalized information regarding business administration.
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.
The Petitioner's references to his prior work experience are material to the second Dhanasar prong, whether an individual is well-positioned to advance a proposed endeavor, but they are immaterial to determining whether the specific, prospective endeavor he proposes to undertake may have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. Similarly, the letters in the record, including an opinion letter written by an adjunct associate professor at I l discuss the Petitioner's qualifications and prior work experience and, thus, are material to the second Dhanasar prong. However, the letters do not address the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how it may have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. Likewise, the publications that provide generalized information regarding business administration address the industry, field, or profession in which the Petitioner will work, but the generalized information does not discuss the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how the specific endeavor may have national or even global implications within the field of business administration or any other field, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive economic effects. See id. Therefore, we need not address the Petitioner's prior work experience, the letters, or the publications that provide generalized information regarding business administration farther. The purported business plan the Petitioner submitted at the time he filed the Form I-140 bears minimal probative value and, in tum, the revised business plan the Petitioner submitted in response to SCOPS' RFE cannot-and does not-establish eligibility for the reasons discussed above. However, to the extent that the record establishes what the proposed endeavor will actually entail and whether it may be viable, the endeavor may benefit the Petitioner as the owner of the business administration consulting services company, and its clients and business partners. However, the record does not p. 6 establish how the proposed endeavor of one business administration consultant providing consulting services to clients may have national or even global implications within the field of business administration, or any other field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes. See id. The record also does not establish how the Petitioner's proposal to employ apparently only himself demonstrates how the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers. See id. The record does not otherwise establish how the proposed endeavor may have substantial positive economic effects, particularly given that the purported business plan anticipates that the company will operate at a financial loss, even relying on arbitrary and unsubstantiated financial information, as addressed above. See id.
In summation, considering the record in its entirety, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he 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.S(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.