The Petitioner, an accountant, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. 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 eligibility for a national interest. 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 apreponderance 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 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. 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 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 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id. at 889.
Analysis
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in arange of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. The tenn "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation. For example, while engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed endeavor should describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the person will work, rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The Director determined that while the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, she did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance as set forth under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We agree, for the reasons explained below.
The Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor "is to provide financial management services that utilize artificial intelligence techniques in order to improve the performance of small and mediumsized businesses in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic." She states that "[a]ppropriate financial management is directly correlated with the success of a business, while financial mismanagement is frequently a cause of business failure. Moreover, implementing artificial intelligence and automation software into the financial management process allows businesses to accurately and efficiently manage their resources without fear of errors." She contends that her "work is necessary for economic rebuilding after the pandemic," and ... "also falls in line with the goals of the United States government to promote artificial intelligence research for economic development, per the National Artificial Intelligence (Al) Initiative Act of 2020." She asserts that she has made significant progress toward achieving her proposed endeavor as evidenced by her submission of letters of recommendation which "provide proof that she has been recognized as a top-tier professional in the field of finance by her peers" and "verifies that her work has had tangible benefits for the economic success of multinational corporations." She also maintains that her business plan has "obtained interest from potential customers and/or users in the industry," and refers to a letter from a manager at thel I I Iin Texas, indicating "his desire to work with her again in the United States," and a letter from a former chief financial officer ofl Iwho states that "he wishes to work with the Petitioner again due to the exceptional work she performed managing I !financial services across Latin America."
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider the evidence demonstrating the national importance of her endeavor, including "numerous reports, articles and government initiatives p. 3 related to the proposed endeavor." She contends that "each piece of evidence has been selected to demonstrate the direct and specific alignment of [her] endeavor with key national initiatives and objectives" and notes that "the American Jobs Plan ... the Small Business Administration SBIC Program ... and the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 ... not only highlight the importance of SMEs2 to the U.S. economy and employment but also underscore the national government's interest to build a resilient and prosperous national SME sector, in which technology, especially Al, is afundamental part of the future success of SM Es and the U.S. economy." She further contends that the Director's "assertion that the record does not detail how the endeavor's impact would operate on such a large scale as to rise to the level of national importance and benefit the U.S. regional or national economy lacks basis, as the impact outlined in the Dhanasar framework does not focus solely on a geographical scale." In addition, in response to the Director's determination that she did not provide specific details on whether her consultancy would employ any individuals apart from herself, the Petitioner notes that "the standard of review for meeting each of the relevant and respective prongs in the Dhanasar decision is a preponderance of the evidence standard, and the decision itself stipulated that the potential to employ US workers is just an example of a factor that may be considered. It is not inherently necessary to meet each of the possible evidentiary examples provided in the precedent decision in order to prove that a proposed endeavor is of national importance." Here, the Petitioner relies primarily on the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy as well as the United States' interest in assisting and strengthening small businesses by leveraging Al in their operations. However, this misapplies the Dhanasar framework. While the Petitioner asserts that she plans to assist SMEs by implementing Al and automation software into their financial management processes, her endeavor does not include any specific plans or demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Id. at 890. In addition, while she maintains that her endeavor aligns with federal initiatives regarding the promotion of Al, the record does not indicate by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner would be engaged in activities that would actually increase the use of Al capabilities of small and medium-sized businesses. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value, 3 and here, the Petitioner has not shown with sufficient evidence how her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her potential clients or the industry or fields that her clients are involved in.No interest from users, customers or investors In addition, while the Petitioner claims that by "providing financial solutions that are specific to the individualized needs of SMEs, [she] is helping the United States achieve" its goal of promoting renewed growth of the small business sector, she has not been established this claim through independent and objective evidence.
In the present case, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in her statements and her business plan, that her business's activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to the region of Florida or the United States, and her statements are not sufficient to demonstrate her endeavor has the potential to provide economic, societal, and security benefits to the United States.Plan or projections not corroborated We recognize the importance of the accounting and financial services industry as well as the impact that Al can have on the economic performance of businesses; however, the Petitioner's 2 "SME" is a common acronym in the business world, referring to small and medium enterprises that maintain revenues, assets, or a number of employees below a certain threshold.
stated intention to provide financial management services with a goal towards promoting the use of Al for small businesses, coupled with reports and articles regarding the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy and the impact of Al on these businesses, is insufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Further, the economic benefits that the Petitioner claims will result from her endeavor depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between her proposed business's financial services work and the claimed economic results.
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the 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. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reached"); 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).
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.