The Petitioner, a systems engineer, 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).
USCIS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is 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 of Christo '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. 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 degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
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 USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature).
- 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.
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
Analysis
USCIS determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, based upon obtaining the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree in systems engineering followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). However, the record lacks a credential evaluation to demonstrate that the Petitioner's foreign education is equivalent to at least a bachelor's degree in the United States. Additionally, the record lacks specific descriptions of the Petitioner's job duties in her post-baccalaureate positions. The Petitioner provided certificates from her prior employers stating her job title, salary, and date the employment began. However, the regulations require that evidence of qualifying experience be from prior employers and include a "specific description of the duties performed." 8 C.F .R. § 204.S(g)(l ). While the Petitioner provided separate job descriptions for some of these positions, the record lacks specific descriptions of the job duties for several of these positions. The Petitioner should be prepared to address these deficiencies in any future petitions in which evidence of an advanced degree or the equivalent is required.
The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest under the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar. USCIS determined that while the Petitioner demonstrated the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, she did not establish its national importance, as required by the first prong of Dhanasar analytical framework. Upon de novo review, we agree that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong, and we will dismiss the appeal on that basis. While we may not discuss every piece of evidence submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one.
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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id.
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to provide consultancy services in information technology, systems engineering, and cybersecurity. She states that she will "provide her in-depth knowledge based on her vast experience acting as an expert engineer, developer, and consultant for advanced security systems, focusing on security within the IT systems in critical infrastructure with special emphasis on financial institutions." In response to USCIS' request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a business plan for a consulting business called '1 l" which she proposes to establish in Florida.
The business plan states that the company's mission is to "provide advanced, efficient, and reliable IT and cybersecurity solutions that address the growing needs for digital transformation, operational resilience, and data security." It farther states that the company will offer services to "a wide range of clients, from small businesses to national organization," and will "foster resilience and security within organizations while contributing to economic and operational growth in the IT and cybersecurity industries." The business plan states that the company's services will include "comprehensive cybersecurity assessments, digital transformation strategy development, database administration and optimization, project leadership, specialized training programs, and disaster recovery planning." The plan projects hiring 10 employees by year 3 and 20 or more employees by year 5.
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that USCIS erred in how it evaluated the evidence in the record. One of these alleged errors is that USCIS failed to follow specific guidance in Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 5 of the Policy Manual which states that officers "should use a two-step analysis to evaluate evidence: first assessing whether the evidence meets regulatory criteria and then conducting a final merits determination by evaluating all the evidence together." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The Petitioner asserts that, instead of following this guidance, USCIS erred by isolating and dismissing each piece of evidence individually and did not consider the evidence "holistically."
The Petitioner, however, mischaracterizes the Policy Manual's guidance. The two-step analysis discussed in this chapter relates to how officers determine whether an individual qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra at F.5(B)(2); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). This two-step analysis does not, as the Petitioner claims, relate to evaluating an individual's eligibility for a national interest waiver within the Dhanasar analytical framework.
Additionally, we disagree with the Petitioner that USCIS erred by considering specific evidence individually and discussing specific deficiencies in that evidence. It is true that evidence should be considered in totality to determine whether eligibility has been established by a preponderance. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. However, USCIS' thoroughness in discussing specific deficiencies and enumerating these individually was not in error. Indeed, an officer must folly explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must folly explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal).
Other than objecting to USCIS' evaluation ofthe evidence, the Petitioner does not identify any specific erroneous conclusions of law or statements of fact regarding USCIS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner claims, in general, that USCIS did not consider the body of evidence as a whole, including the business plan, the letters of recommendation, letters of intent, and expert opinion letter, and the decision was therefore in error.Support letters generic or unsupported However, the Petitioner does not address or overcome the specific deficiencies identified by USCIS with this evidence and does not overcome USCIS' finding that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor.
For example, we agree with USCIS that the business plan submitted in response to the RFE relies on broad, unsupported claims regarding the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor and does not sufficiently support these claims with documentary evidence. The Petitioner's business plan includes a description ofthe company's services, provides intended goals for the company's first three years, its marketing strategy, and the industry outlook. Although the business plan states that the endeavor will "drive economic growth," "enhance workforce competitiveness, and "enhance the resilience of critical infrastructure," the plan does not credibly explain how the endeavor will do so at a level commensurate with national importance.
The Petitioner submitted articles related to the importance of cybersecurity and the importance of the information technology sector to the U.S. economy, such as a White House Fact Sheet on national cybersecurity strategy and a Brookings.com article on trends in the information technology sector. But an entrepreneur cannot demonstrate national importance under the first prong solely by opening a consulting firm for those working in a nationally importance occupation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra at F.5(D)(6). Similarly, statements and evidence regarding the importance of the relevant industry overall will not demonstrate that a person seeking to work in that industry satisfies the national importance element of the first prong. See id.
Regarding the Petitioner's letters of intent from potential clients, USCIS found that they lacked credibility and probative value in part because of the strikingly similar language repeated in each of the letters. For example, three ofthe letters state that the letter writer is seeking to "engage a provider whose services prioritize reliability, innovation, and security," and that these services will address needs such as mitigating risks, improving operations efficiency, and data integrity.
We agree with USCIS that the language and structure of these letters are similar enough to reduce their credibility. As a general concept, when a petitioner has provided affidavits from different persons that contribute to the eligibility claim, but the language and structure contained within the affidavits is notably similar, the trier offact may treat those similarities as a basis for questioning a petitioner's claims. 2 When affidavits contain such similarities, it is reasonable to infer that the petitioner who submitted the notably similar documents is the actual source from where the suspicious similarities derive. Cf Mei Chai Ye v. US. Dept. ofJustice, 489 F.3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 2007); Wang v. Lynch, 824 F.3d at 592. As a result, the letters possess significantly diminished probative value. In evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (quoting Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). The Petitioner, however, does not address this issue on appeal or offer an explanation as to the repeated language and similar structure.
The Petitioner's claims on appeal do not overcome the basis for USCIS' findings as they relate to the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Moreover, upon de novo review, we agree that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 2 See Matter ofR-K-K-, 26 T&N Dec. 658,665 (BIA 2015); Singh v. Garland, No. 19-60937, 2021 WL 5984797, at *2 (5th Cir. Dec. 17, 2021); Surinder Singh v. Board ofImmigration Appeals, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006); Wang v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 587, 592 (6th Cir. 2016); Dehonzai v. Holder, 650 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2011); Hamal v. U.S. Dep 't ofHomeland Security, No. 19-2534, WL 2338316, at *4, n.3 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021). p. 5 for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner has demonstrated eligibility for the EB-2 classification or eligibility under either the second or third Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curium) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he 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.