The Petitioner, a technology marketing and sales manager, 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 merited a waiver of the job offer requirement, and therefore labor certification, for EB-2 classification. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts eligibility and resubmits evidence previously provided to the Director.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&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.
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 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
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
The Petitioner proposed to operate as the chief executive officer of a newly created lumber retailer and wholesaler, I Iwith an emphasis on importing specific products from Brazil. In the business plan submitted to the Director, the Petitioner claimed that the operation would employ 12 individuals in the I I Florida area by year five. Additionally, the Petitioner claimed revenue of nearly $2 million in year five with a net profit of $143,784. The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), determining that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as member of the professions with an advanced degree, but seeking additional information regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor and additional evidence that the Petitioner was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a document titled "Financial Business Overview of I Ia new statement from counsel, and evidence that the Petitioner owns various parcels of land in Brazil. The Petitioner also submitted multiple letters of support regarding his past work experience and managerial expertise. The Director determined that, while the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, the collective evidence did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had the economic, industrial, social, or cultural impact necessary to meet the national interest criteria described in the first prong of Dhanasar. In addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish his eligibility under the second prong of Dhanasar, being well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
On appeal, the Petitioner requests that USCIS reconsider their decision regarding the national importance of his proposed endeavor and his qualifications to complete that endeavor. The Petitioner resubmits the evidence provided to the Director and argues that his proposed endeavor would create jobs, increase tax revenue, promote positive trade relations with Brazil, and ensure resource accessibility to the I Iarea constrnction market.
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Id. 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. This consideration may include whether the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90.
The Petitioner's initial business plan provided to the Director indicated that his company would increase revenue from $1 .1 million to $2 million in the first five years of operation. However, in the "Financial Business Overview of I I provided in response to the RFE, the Petitioner claims that his business would rise from $2.7 million in year one to more than $20 million in year five. The initial business plan also indicated the Petitioner would see profits of$143,784 in year five, while the financial business overview claimed profit of $11 ,616,473 in year five. The Petitioner further states that in addition to the hiring of U.S. employees, his company would pay $20.7 million in "shipping, duties, and taxes" to the U.S. economy. The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for the substantial discrepancies between the initial business plan and the financial business overview submitted in response to the RFE.Inconsistencies in the record The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id.; see also Matter of O-M-0-, 28 I&N Dec. 191 , 197 (BIA 2021) ("by submitting fabricated evidence, the appellant compromised the integrity of his entire claim") (cleaned up). The Petitioner has relied upon two distinct and divergent financial forecasts to claim that his proposed endeavor will have a significant impact on the U.S. economy. As the Petitioner has not explained the discrepancies between these two forecasts or identified which of the two economic forecasts is an accurate reflection of his proposed endeavor, he has not established that his endeavor will have significant benefits to the U.S. economy as claimed on appeal.
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Specifically, he has not shown that his company' s future staffing levels, business profits, or associated tax revenue would have significant economic impacts in Florida or the United States or otherwise extend beyond his clientele to impact the lumber industry or cross-border trade initiatives more broadly and at a level commensurate with national importance. Due to the substantial variation in the Petitioner's claimed sales forecasts, the Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated the potential benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking or that it would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Moreover, the Petitioner has not adequately explained how either sales forecast was calculated or otherwise substantiated the forecasts with additional evidence. Although the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable lumber to the I I market and create 12 full time positions within five years of commencing business, he has not offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the area where I Ioperates is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor would offer substantial economic benefit such that it rises to the level of national importance. Finally, although the Petitioner asserts that his company will increase positive trade relations between the United States and Brazil, he has not provided evidence to substantiate his claim that his proposed endeavor would have a measurable impact on U.S. trade relations with one of its largest trading partners, Brazil.
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofhis eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose and we reserve those issues on appeal. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.