The Petitioner, a financial manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as amember of the professions holding an advanced degree, as wel I as anational 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).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework p. 2 for adjudicating national interest waiver petItIons. Dhanasar states 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.
Id.
Analysis
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.2 We agree that the record supports that determination. The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Director determined that while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, she did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not establish that she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification under Dhanasar 's third prong.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver of the labor certification would be in the national interest.3
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 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." Id.
The Petitioner proposes to establish a financial, tax, and accounting consulting business in Florida for which she would be a director and lead consultant. The Petitioner indicates that her business would provide its consulting services to U.S. start-up businesses in the retail and service segments which are interested in investing and expanding their operations in the Brazilian market. According to the Petitioner, most small businesses fail because of financial mismanagement and businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic are particularly vulnerable. Therefore, her business would identify 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third Circuit Court in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
opportunities and assess risks to structure specialized financial processes to effectively navigate the Brazilian accounting, tax, and financial laws and procedures. We agree with the Director that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit.
Even though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor is of national importance. The Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate her proposed endeavor would extend beyond her business and clients to have a potential prospective impact on her field more broadly. The Director pointed out that evidence showing the importance of a field or occupation is not sufficient to establish an endeavor is of national importance.
On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director's decision has multiple errors by incorrectly applying the law or policy. Instead of analyzing the evidence under the preponderance of the evidence standard, she alleges the Director erroneously imposed a stricter standard of proof. In determining the national importance of her endeavor, the Petitioner argues that the Director erroneously applied the Dhanasar precedent decision. She contends that the Director erroneously limited her endeavor's prospective impact on its geographic scale, instead of its "broader implications," and its potential to employ U.S. workers. She argues that the Director did not consider or give due evidentiary weight to the evidence showing that her endeavor has the potential to impact the U.S. economy and societal welfare, as well as impact a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives.
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). The Director, in evaluating whether the Petitioner had established that she meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, weighed the evidence but determined that the evidence overall lacked probative value. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. In the decision, there is no indication or evidence that the Director used a standard stricter than a preponderance of the evidence. Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the evidence submitted establishes her eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence, as discussed below.
The Petitioner's brief stresses her more than ten years of professional experience, knowledge, and achievements in business administration, finance, and accounting, to show the potential impact of her endeavor. She points to the financial vulnerability of small businesses, particularly those affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and maintains that her professional expertise in the financial management field would provide the needed financial education to businesses, including understanding new technologies and currencies. She argues that her experience in financial management in South America and her knowledge with the varying technological advancements of countries will not only help her clients but would also create "financial bridges" and "economic developments that enhance and improve the functionality and monetary output of the nation's economy." Using her "notable" professional knowledge, she would assist with the market and business development opportunities for U.S. companies which would enhance competitiveness of U.S. companies doing business in Brazil. p. 4 However, the Petitioner's reliance on her professional experience, knowledge, and achievements to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor is misplaced. Her professional experience, knowledge, and achievements relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 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. Id. at 889.
The Petitioner further argues that her endeavor's potential to improve societal welfare and to have substantial positive effects on the U.S. economy is based on her business providing services according to clients' "specific requirements by assisting each client, avoiding project or business failure." She maintains her endeavor's economic impact is evident by her business generating revenue, introducing "new concepts[,]" and boosting the economy. Her business' work in the foreign markets of Brazil would open trade, collaboration, and cultural exchange leading to economic growth in the U.S. and "fostering stronger connections between the United States and Brazil."
The record includes the Petitioner's statements and a business plan which indicate her proposed endeavor has national importance based on potential economic impact to Florida and to the United States. The business plan maintains that her business would create jobs for U.S. workers, generate tax revenue, pay wages to U.S. workers, help U.S. start-up businesses invest in foreign markets, and encourage economic development. The business plan also explains the Petitioner's experience and investment in the business; its intended location in Florida and expansion plans to I I California; the business' financial consulting services; analysis of Brazil's economy; the market demand for accounting and financial services; a market overview of the financial planning and accounting industries; and the business' projected marketing strategy, staffing, and financial forecasts. While we acknowledge and consider the Petitioner's statements and the information contained in her business plan, she has not sufficiently documented the potential prospective impact, including the asserted economic and societal welfare benefits to the United States and the areas it intends to serve.Plan or projections not corroborated The growth and importance of the financial management and accounting industries is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework. Also, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating independent and objective evidence to support her claims that her business' activities stand to provide substantial economic and societal welfare benefits to Florida or the United States. Statements and claims alone are not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of her proposed endeavor. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376.
For instance, the business plan projects that in five years the business will hire 15 direct employees, create 27 indirect jobs, pay wages of just over $750,000, and pay over $112,000 in taxes. However, the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized. The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence demonstrating that her business' future staffing levels and business activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to the United States and the communities in the states it will serve.Job creation or economic claims unsupported While the Petitioner expresses her desire to contribute to the United States, she has not established with specific, probative evidence that her endeavor has the potential to have broader implications in p. 5 her field, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive economic effects in Florida or the United States.No broader implications shown Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record lacks evidence showing that creating 15 direct jobs and 27 indirect jobs; paying wages of just over $700,000; and paying over $112,000 in taxes over a five-year period rises to the level of national importance. Also, without sufficient documentary evidence that her proposed job duties as a director and lead consultant of her financial, tax, and accounting consulting business would impact the financial planning field more broadly, rather than benefiting her business and her clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that her proposed endeavor is of national importance.
The business plan further claims that by disseminating her professional knowledge and skills to U.S. individuals, she would help create qualified workers in her field, thereby fulfilling her industry's needs and benefiting the economy. 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. We noted that "[a]n 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. at 889. Likewise, the Petitioner's intent to transfer her professional knowledge to others does not demonstrate an impact on the financial management and accounting fields more broadly or rise to the level of national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar.
The Petitioner argues on appeal that the Director ignored evidence that shows her endeavor impacts matters that the government has described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives. The Petitioner's business plan indicates her endeavor is aligned with the America Rescue Plan, a U.S. government initiative that grants economic relief for small businesses effected by the COVID-19 pandemic, because her business' services would promote economic growth of clients affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Petitioner's appeal brief stresses that her entrepreneurial endeavor is particularly important given its role in the U.S. recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacts national initiatives. In addition to the business plan, the Petitioner submitted an article relating to challenges for financial advisors post-COVID-19 pandemic.
The importance of U.S. government initiatives relating to the financial recovery of businesses postCOVID-19 pandemic is not in dispute, but their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular. While national initiatives supporting businesses and their financial security are important to the U.S. economy and help demonstrate an endeavor has substantial merit, it does not follow that an individual providing financial, tax, and accounting consulting services to start-up business clients who may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic has national importance. As discussed earlier, working in or establishing a business in an important field is insufficient on its own to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" and consider the endeavor's "potential prospective impact." Id. The Petitioner makes general statements about her business's potential impact on national initiatives but does not quantify the proposed endeavor's expected impact in the identified areas ofconcern, or provide objective, probative evidence to support her contentions.Proposed endeavor too vague Although the Petitioner provides evidence that supporting businesses and entrepreneurs economically affected by COVID-19 pandemic are nationally important issues, she has p. 6 not demonstrated the potential prospective impact of her specific endeavor to such nationally important matters.
Lastly, to demonstrate her endeavor is of national importance, the record includes industry reports and articles that relate to the role and benefits of financial audits for small and medium-sized businesses; a market analysis of the financial planning and advice field for the years 2003 through 2028; the expected increase of financial advisory revenue; financial literacy education gaps; and reasons for the decrease in entrepreneurs. We recognize the importance of entrepreneurs, the financial management and accounting fields and related careers; however, merely working in the financial management and accounting fields or starting a financial, tax, and accounting consulting business focused on start-up businesses is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, we noted 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. 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. The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.
Based on the above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her business and her future clients to impact the field, any other industries, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Moreover, beyond general assertions, she has not demonstrated that the work she proposes to undertake as the owner of her proposed financial, tax, and accounting consulting business offers the claimed innovations that contribute to advancements in her industry or otherwise has broader implications for her field. The economic and societal welfare benefits that the Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors, and she did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between her proposed financial management work and the claimed potential economic and societal welfare benefits.
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. This identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding her eligibility under the second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "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 of L-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).
Ill. CONCLUSION
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.