The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member ofthe 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. § 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 a 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 endeavors to own and operate a "financial literacy and lelding fjcilitation platform," and "credit data analytics company,"! IThe Petitioner explains is a mobile app that offers "tracking and monitoring of information loans," as well as "financial literacy on lending, helping people build and manage their credit profile[s]." The Petitioner anticipates her app will "help people learn better borrowing and lending behaviors and make better lending decisions." The Petitioner believes proposed endeavor will "promote financial inclusion" and "financial literacy" in "immigrant and economically disadvantaged communities," while contributing to the growth of small businesses. The Petitioner expects her app will additionally "generate credit scores and profiles for individuals."
The Director denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor; that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; or that, on balance, it would be beneficial for the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus a labor certification.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.
The Petitioner asserts on appeal she has demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor through its "potential to employ U.S. workers and provide other substantial positive economic effects." I !business plan projects three to four years of operation will result in income of "$1,967,867," with a "consistent gross profit margin of 100%," and cash flow projections of "$4, 784,862," within that same period. The business plan also anticipates rriu0 fom Jniployees, in addition to professional advisors. The Petitioner contends the benefits of~---~ including "financial security, career development, engagement & satisfaction, equity & including, economic empowerment for the underserved and increase[d] services and positive financial and economic activities" will result in "increased commercial activities, funds flow and tax revenue." However, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient supporting evidence corroborating the projected employment and financial figures forl Ior established the significance of the data to show the endeavor would provide substantial economic benefits to the region or national economy more broadly.Job creation or economic claims unsupported And while the p. 3 Petitioner's proposed endeavor may stimulate economic act1v1ty to some level, it is also the Petitioner's burden to demonstrate the economic effects of her proposed endeavor will be substantial and at a level commensurate with national importance. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects beyond her company and the users of its app, such that it would have broader implications for the United States.
The Petitioner asserts her endeavor goes beyond bringing commercial act1v1ty to "economically underserved communities," as it also "enhance[s] societal welfare." The Petitioner intends! Ito track and monitor informal loans, offer financial literacy on lending, µmYi.ds; access to formal lending institutions, and increase financial inclusion. The Petitioner, throughl__J aspires to allow "people of color and immigrants [to] folly participate in the country's financial ecosystem." The Petitioner believes! lwill help "small businesses grow," and result in wealth-building and ease the burden of "social programs" and the reduction of the crime rate and income disparity. We acknowledge the importance ofthe Petitioner's goals forl Iincluding the support ofsmall businesses and extension of financial lending opportunities and literacy throughout the population. However, merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of a proposed endeavor. The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the Petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's Dh • •
~-----~ The Petitioner has not demonstrated that her own similar contributions through~-~ would have broader implication in this field. Overall, she has not sufficiently demonstrated her endeavor will extend beyond her company's and its users' interests in a manner that has national or global impact in these field, or broader implication arising from the endeavor at a level commensurate with national importance.Proposed endeavor too vague
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs and Ineligibility
As our finding on this issue is dispositive 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 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.