The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) consultant, 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. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the 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.
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 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 submitted evidence that he holds a bachelor's degree in computer science and has over five years of progressive experience in his specialty, which establishes that he qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional pursuant to the definition of advanced degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The only issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest.
The Petitioner submitted a business plan for his limited liability company offering consulting services "on IT solutions: end-to-end consulting and support for small and medium companies to implement higher technology solutions, especially implementing the digital transformation in these companies." The Petitioner states he will serve as the chief executive officer of the company which will be headquartered in Florida.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first Dhanasar 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. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. We agree. 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 Director determined the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor would have national importance under these factors.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director erred and his company has national importance because it will "improve digital transformation in small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)," which is "fundamental to the growth and prosperity ofthe US economy." The Petitioner summarizes data from the U.S. Small Business Administration and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the size and value of small businesses and cites other studies on the value of corporate taxes. The Petitioner also submits articles on the role small businesses play in the American economy, financing for sustainable development, how countries can tap tax potential to finance development goals, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Input-Output Modeling System Multipliers. This data and these articles discuss the importance of small businesses and corporate taxes, but do not address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field or sector of the U.S. economy in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."Proposed endeavor too vague Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner does not demonstrate how his company's work would extend beyond its clients to improve digital transformation in his field p. 3 overall or otherwise impact his field more broadly in a manner commensurate with national importance.No broader implications shown See id. at 889 ( explaining "we look for broader implications").
The Petitioner further asserts his company will have national importance based on the taxes it will pay and the number of people it will employ. The Petitioner's business plan projects the company will pay $50,004 in federal, state and payroll taxes the first year, increasing to $458,124 in the fifth year. The business plan also forecasts employing 4 people the first year, increasing to 25 in the fifth year. The record does not indicate that the payment ofup to $458,124 in taxes and the employment ofup to 25 people is significantly high given that the business plan states the IT consulting industry's revenue was over $525 billion in 2021 and SMBs employed 61.2 million people in 2021. In addition, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that his company's projected employment and payment of taxes would have substantial positive economic effects in Florida where it will be based.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
The Petitioner also claims his company will have national importance by addressing the shortage of IT professionals. The Petitioner explains his company will provide training to administrators, developers, employees, end users and young people and thereby foster the IT job market. The Petitioner does not provide evidence of how many people his company would train and does not establish how his company's training would extend beyond individual trainees to address the shortage of IT professionals at a level indicative of national importance.Relied on a labor shortage 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, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond his company's clients and trainees to impact his field more broadly in a manner commensurate with national importance.
The Petitioner states "[i]t is critical to provide the necessary resources and support to SMEs to ensure they have the tools and knowledge they need to successfully navigate the digital landscape and capitalize on the opportunities that digital transformation offers." The record does not indicate, however, that any of the tools, knowledge, or services the Petitioner's company will offer are unique, innovative or otherwise have national or even global implications for the IT consulting industry. See id. at 889 ( discussing improved manufacturing processes or medical advances as examples of national or even global implications within a particular field).
In sum, the relevant evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Consequently, the Petitioner does not meet the first Dhanasar prong.
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor and he does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of his eligibility under the second and third prongs ofthe 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 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).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, he has not demonstrated that he is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.