The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the fields of tax, accounting, and financial services consulting, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the 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. § 1153(b)(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a waiver of the job offer requirement 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. 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
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework requires the Petitioner to establish the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. We agree with the Director that the submitted documentation establishes the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner stated in response to a request for evidence (RFE) that he "will offer expert tax planning, preparation, and consulting services ... will provide meticulous bookkeeping services that ensure accurate financial records, timely reporting, and adherence to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) ... will offer strategic financial consulting services to small corporation[ s ], self-employment businesses and individuals assisting them in making professional decisions to achieve their growth objectives." Additionally, he provided in his business plan that the company will offer preparation of personal tax returns, corporate tax returns for small businesses, and non-profit organization tax returns. The business plan also provides the company will offer representation before the Internal Revenue Service, tax consulting, financial consulting, and bookkeeping, accounting, and payroll services.
In addition to the above documents, the record includes, but is not limited to, statements from the Petitioner, financial records, photographs of potential office spaces, letters of recommendation, prior employer letters, education and certification records, a resume, accountant-related articles, and immigration records.
The Director listed evidence submitted by the Petitioner and described the proposed endeavor. The Director referenced multiple industry articles related to the importance of accountants and the current shortage of them in the United States. However, the Director noted that the issue in determining national importance is the impact of the proposed endeavor rather than the importance of the occupational classification.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's Additionally, the Director stated an occupational shortage does not, by itself, establish that the work would impact the broader field or otherwise have implications rising to the national importance.Relied on a labor shortage The Director found that the Petitioner did not show the proposed endeavor would extend beyond the individuals he serves to impact the fields or industry more broadly. Next, the Director reviewed information from the Petitioner's business plan, including salaries and wages for staff from 2024 through 2026. However, the Director stated that the Petitioner did not offer sufficient evidence to illustrate the number of individuals he plans to hire or that the intended rate of pay would have substantial positive economic effects.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish his business, which would be in California, would impact the regional or national population at a level consistent with national importance. Finally, the Director found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact, including broader implications for the accounting field, or national or global implications within the field; significant potential to employ U.S. workers; substantial economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed field; broad enhancement of societal welfare; or broad enhancement of cultural or artistic enrichment.No broader implications shown Therefore, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor has national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner mentions that the Director listed an incorrect date for the RFE and the date of his response to the RFE. We note that these errors are not related to a determination of whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance. Next, the Petitioner points out the Director initially stated he did not qualify for the classification requested and did not meet any ofthe prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. He then mentions that later in the decision the Director found that he met the underlying EB-2 visa classification as an advanced degree professional and he met the second prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework for being well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. It appears that the Director's initial statements were inadvertent, and we acknowledge the Director found that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional and well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Furthermore, the Petitioner claims that the Director erred in stating that his business plan lacks the number of employees and their salaries, and he asserts that this information was provided on pages 12 and 13. Page 12 of the business plan provides that salaries to directors and staff would be part of the cost of sales; page 13 provides that the Petitioner will hire two to three staff members and college students at an hourly rate of $17 to $22; page 15 lists salaries of $12,000 for 2024, $12,400 for 2025, and $15,500, for 2026; page 15 also lists cost of sales (salary) as $60,000 for 2025, $72,000 for 2026, and $90,000 for an undesignated year; and page 17 lists salaries of $72,400 for 2024. We note that the information from the business plan regarding salaries is inconsistent. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.Inconsistencies in the record Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Furthermore, the business plan does not provide complete information on the projected number of employees. We also note the business plan does not list revenue for 2024, and lists $120,000 for 2025, $144,000 for 2026, and $180,000 for an undesignated year. However, these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved. The Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States. Specifically, he has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in California or the United States. He has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The Petitioner does not address the Director's other findings related to national importance. However, we will review other previously submitted evidence in relation to whether it establishes the proposed endeavor has national importance. 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. While the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide tax, accounting, and financial services consulting services to his company's future clients, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises p. 4 to the level of national importance. 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. Id. at 893. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field, the tax, accounting, and financial services consulting industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
The Petitioner submitted his resume, letters of recommendation, prior employer letters, and education and certification records. The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the proposed endeavor and not on the Petitioner's education and prior work in the field. The national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands separate and apart from his education, skills, and job experience. 2
The Petitioner previously submitted articles about the importance of accountants and their shortage in the United States. The issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; rather we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In addition, the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that his business would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims. Furthermore, while any basic economic activity has the potential to positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications in his field or to generate substantial positive economic effects in the region where his company will operate or in other parts of the United States.
The Petitioner has not established that he meets the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Therefore, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive ofthe Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the third prong outlined inDhanasar. 3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 ofL-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). ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.