The Petitioner, an entrepreneur and business consultant, 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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver ofthe required job offer, and thus ofa labor certification, would be 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.
Ifa 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 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) (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).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
The Petitioner endeavors to establish and seTe as chief executive officer and senior consultant of I The Petitioner characterizes I Jas "a
[g]lobal [b]usiness [s]trategy and [f]inancial [a]dvisory firm focused on providing managem~ financial services tailored to support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)." Through L___J I ~he Petitioner intends to offer a wide variety of services to SMEs, including: "startup feasibility to market entry strategies, sales optimization, and operational efficiency," in addition to "supply chain management," "talent acquisition and CRM implementation," and "digital marketing and client retention."
Though SCOPS determined the Petitioner demonstrated the substantial merit ofhis proposed endeavor and that he is well-positioned to advance it, they found the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the endeavor or that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would be of benefit to the United States.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
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. 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. 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.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the submitted evidence was misinterpreted, as it was sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of his endeavor. The Petitioner contends his endeavor aligns with national priorities, as I l"strengthens sector-wide competitiveness, stimulates job creation, and fosters international trade-particularly between the f1 S and Tatiu America." The Petitioner claims the impact of his endeavor will extend well beyond.__ ________.llients as his own personal experience, the "high standards" for his own team, and "helping clients succeed" will "raise the bar for business consulting overall." The Petitioner also asserts his company is both "an agent ofeconomic growth but also a catalyst for positive social change," as it focuses on "engaging with local communities and championing social causes," "supporting diverse suppliers and advocating for ethical business practices," "prioritizing education, skills development, and collaboration on societal issues," and "sustainable, ethical practices." While we acknowledge the importance of not only the principles of I Ibut relevant fields, including business consulting and international trade, the assessment of national importance is not focused on the importance of p. 3 principles or fields in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated thatl I expansive work with its clients, as characterized by the Petitioner, would exert broader implications to a relevant field, as directly attributable to the endeavor and rising to the level ofnational importance.Proposed endeavor too vague The Petitioner highlights a letter of interest from a potential client that attests to the quality of the Petitioner's work, specifies anticipated services, and claims that the Petitioner's work "has the potential to significantly impact" not only the author's own business, but also "the broader industry." However, the author does not provide context or details for his assertion that the Petitioner's work has the potential to significantly impact the broader industry. 2 The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that he is providing "innovative consulting" to his clients, but does not detail these innovations, how these innovations differ from other businesses providing similar services in this field, or how they rise to the level of national importance. Similarly, though the Petitioner articulates his own experience, coupled with the high caliber ofI Iwork, would raise the standard for business consulting, economic growth, and social change, he does not provide meaningful support or analysis for these assertions.
The Petitioner asserts his endeavor "will play a crucial role" in the U.S. economy, not only through the "success of companies supported by [his] consulting services," but also the business projections forl I Specifically, the Petitioner claims that upon using Regional Input-Output Modeling Systems {RIMS II} analysis, based on his business plan, he determined!Plan or projections not corroborated I "is projected to generate $9.1 million in sales" in five years, create "168 direct and indirect jobs," result in a "$20.07 million increase in gross output," and "contribute $12.50 million in value-added impact." However, initially, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the record contains sufficient supporting evidence for his business plan's employment and revenue figures, upon which the Petitioner relies for his RIMS II analysis projections. Accordingly, the provided figures, and by extension the RIMS II analysis figures] are not corroborated by probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate it is more likely than not that lwill have a substantial positive economic effect within the field. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec at 376. Overall, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor based on its impact on the U.S. economy or potential for job creation.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision.
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs and Ineligibility
As our finding on this issue is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and reserve whether the Petitioner has met the additional prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 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 2 It is noted that letters of support, insofar as they laud the Petitioner's quality of work, generally relate not to the national importance of an endeavor but whether an individual is well-positioned to advance an endeavor, the second Dhanasar prong.Support letters generic or unsupported
L-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).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.