The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of teambuilding and business development, 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).
USCIS denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, she had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 1 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 ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christa'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) ofthe Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides 1 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. p. 2 the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that users may, as matter of discretion, 2 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 Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to establish a consulting firm in New York that will provide business coaching and consulting services in person and online. She explains that through her services, she "can contribute to organizational success, economic growth, and the overall well-being of businesses and the nation as a whole."
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Id. 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. users determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was of substantial merit, and we agree. However, users concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance.
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. In Dhanasar, we noted that, in assessing national importance, "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. at 890. 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.
On appeal, the Petitioner contends users misapplied "Matter ofDhanasar by treating office location and individualized client services as effectively dispositive against national importance." In addition, the Petitioner asserts users erroneously imposed a higher standard of proof than a preponderance of the evidence and disregarded key evidence including the expert opinion letters. The Petitioner further asserts that her "work contributes to the development, growth and efficiency of U.S. businesses, supporting entrepreneurship and strengthening organizational performance across industries" and, therefore, establishes national importance.
Upon de novo review, we observe that users did not impose a heightened standard of proof and adequately assessed the relevant evidence. When users provides a reasoned consideration of the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence a petitioner presents. See 2 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). p. 3 Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022); Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973,976 (1st Cir. 1992); ajf'd Morales v. INS, 208 F.3d 323,328 (1st Cir. 2000); see also Pakasi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2009); andKazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009). Here, the Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor "is not location-bound" and that "it is inherently scalable and geographically flexible." She further states that she "provides consulting and business development services to clients across multiple cities and states within the United States." The Petitioner, however, has not provided evidence demonstrating that her proposed endeavor 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.No broader implications shown Furthermore, while any basic economic activity has the potential to positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the asserted potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications in her industry or to generate substantial positive economic effects.Job creation or economic claims unsupported 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her consulting services firm and her future clients to impact her field of teambuilding and business development, the economy, or U.S. societal welfare more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
Specifically, we reviewed the two expert opinion letters in the record. While R-P- discusses the proposed endeavor and its claimed benefits, his opinion is largely conclusory and does not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work would produce such nationally important impacts.Support letters generic or unsupported For example, RP-opines that the Petitioner's "work will directly contribute to the U.S. economy through entrepreneurship, job creation, and tax revenue" and explains that the Petitioner's "initiatives directly support job creation through trained entrepreneurs, strengthen economic resilience through improved business practices, and generate positive community and social impact, particularly for underrepresented groups." But beyond these generalizations, R-P- provides little explanation or corroborating evidence directly linking the Petitioner's company to these claimed benefits, industry wide impact, or other substantial positive economic or societal effects.
The letter from F-J-Q-, an adjunct associate professor atl lfocuses on the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience. Yet, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Therefore, this letter does not further the Petitioner's assertion of the national importance of her proposed endeavor.
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility. The submission ofletters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value).
Additionally, the Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence showing that her proposed endeavor has "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. In her business plan, the Petitioner claims she will create 15 jobs and generate approximately $2 million in total revenue over the first five years of operations. The business plan, however, does not explain how these forecasts were calculated or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized, nor has the Petitioner provided independent evidence or otherwise explained how her business would create jobs at a level that would have a significant impact in a region or have a prospective national impact on a specific field. As such, the record does not demonstrate that the prospective benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by the precedent decision. Id. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.
Finally, we also reviewed the Petitioner's letters of recommendation. The authors praise the Petitioner's abilities and the personal attributes that make her an asset in the business field. For instance, one letter states that the Petitioner's "strategic thinking, combined with deep empathy and strong communications skills, helped countless women overcome barriers in business - from language and legal challenges to funding and visibility." Another letter states that the Petitioner's "innovative strategies in goal setting, business planning, and leadership development have helped aspiring entrepreneurs gain clarity and confidence to launch or improve their ventures. While the letters evidence the high regard the Petitioner's colleagues have for her and her work, they do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of her proposed endeavor or establish how such an impact would extend beyond her future clients. As such, the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar.
Conclusion
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we need not address her eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. 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 alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). The burden of proof is on the Petitioner to establish that she meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The Petitioner has not done so here and, therefore, we conclude that she has not established eligibility for 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 3 USCIS determined without analysis that the Petitioner established she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. p. 5 under section 240 ofthe 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.