The Petitioner, a clean energy specialist, 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).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 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 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. An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that ofa 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.
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 l&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.
National Interest Waiver
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. We agree with this determination. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. SCOPS concluded the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor had substantial merit. We disagree, as the Petitioner's proposed endeavor falls within the range of areas of substantial merit, namely science and technology. Id. However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish its national importance.
The Petitioner indicates he is an electrical engineer with twenty-one years of experience in renewable energy. He stated that his proposed endeavor is to leverage his extensive experience to "promote the renewable energy and infrastructure industries within the United States by assisting companies in the development, management, and financial structuring of complex clean energy projects." The Petitioner states that he aims to address challenges in the development of these projects, with the goal of assisting U.S. companies to compete in the global market and maintain a competitive advantage. He further emphasized that he would provide innovative strategies focused on sustainability and environmentally friendly business practices and boost the overall U.S. economy.
When the petition was filed in December 2023, the Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor had national importance because it impacted matters that the White House had identified as the subject of national initiatives. For instance, the Petitioner pointed to executive orders addressing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and a City o~ Iclimate adaptation plan. The Petitioner indicated that his proposed endeavor was consistent with the prior administration's focus on activating the entire government to fight climate change, produce jobs in this process, and accelerate America's clean energy economy. The Petitioner discussed various government initiatives related to this effort, including a $20 billion competition for clean energy projects funded through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, with a goal to significantly rejuce emissions by 2030. Likewise, the Petitioner pointed to a similar initiative by City ofl,_____, Sustainability Office to achieve an 80% reduction in green house gas emissions by 2050. He also emphasized that his proposed consulting company, he asserted would operate in thel Iarea, would positively impact 27 areas designated by law for economic redevelopment through the "Opportunity Zone program."
SCOPS later issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that the Petitioner submitted an overly vague proposed endeavor and requesting a more detailed description identifying the specific projects he intended to work on in the United States.Proposed endeavor too vague SCOPS indicated that the provided evidence did not reflect a direct connection between the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and a sufficiently broad national impact. SCOPS also noted that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the level of job creation resulting from his proposed endeavor or that his techniques or methods were sufficiently innovative or distinct to have a broad and substantial impact on his field.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
In response, the Petitioner asserted that he submitted a "well-wrought, succinct, and complete proposed endeavor," demonstrating it would support the expansion of alternative energy systems in rural areas and drive economic development. The Petitioner emphasized the U.S. government's long history of promoting non-traditional energy systems in rural areas, pointing to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1980. He stated that this law created emergency loan programs for rural workers through the U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) to provide "technical assistance programs that provide experts or services to advise and support communities." He pointed to various government programs, including the Clean Energy to Communities initiative, the Energy Transitions Initiative Partnership Project, the Solar Energy Innovation Network, and Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Programs through the Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Similarly, he pointed to a new $9.7 billion program, the Empowering Rural America New ERA Program, providing grants, loans, and other financial assistance "to rural co-ops for commercially available zero emission and grid technologies." The Petitioner asserted that his proposed endeavor directly aligns with these urgent U.S. priorities to modernize and decarbonize the national energy infrastructure and expand energy systems to rural areas.
The Petitioner also pointed to a more recent executive order "Declaring a National Energy Emergency," stating that the U.S. energy infrastructure was inadequate for reliable energy supply and directing all federal agencies to accelerate new energy identification through leasing, production, transportation, refining, and generation on federal lands. Likewise, he emphasized another recent executive order "Unleashing American Energy" eliminating restrictions on energy development on federal lands and waters. The Petitioner asserted that his proposed endeavor conducting feasibility studies and implementing financial models would directly address these new executive orders by improving the country's capacity to produce energy. In addition, the Petitioner submitted a support letter from Dr. M-G-, an economist, stating that the Petitioner's "platform" could help "de-risk investment, reduce emissions, and unlock local co-benefits" such as "employment, grid resilience, and rural economic stimulation," bringing investment directly to struggling areas.
In concluding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance ofhis proposed endeavor, SCOPS acknowledges that he provided articles and reports relevant to the industry, but that these did not demonstrate the broader impacts of his proposed endeavor.No broader implications shown SCOPS emphasized that he did not submit a sufficient business plan for his proposed consulting company, including its projected employees and finances. SCOPS reasoned that they therefore could not determine the extent of any claimed positive economic effects his endeavor would have on thel Iarea. SCOPS also concluded that the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish the broader implications his proposed endeavor would have on his field, such as through innovation or unique methodologies.
On appeal, the Petitioner states he provided a specific plan focusing on 20 counties in the United States that present "hirh develolment potential." He also emphasizes his asserted consulting services to be provided in the~--~ area through his new company, and evidence reflecting he would invest approximately $126,000 in this venture. The Petitioner again contends he provided sufficient evidence to establish that his proposed endeavor directly impacts several national initiatives, including those previously discussed on the record as well as a "Made In America" initiative promulgated by the White House, a $20 billion EPA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the Inflation Reduction Act and its $370 billion in investments to lower energy costs, and the DOEs Energy to Communities Program, among others. The Petitioner contends that his "clearly articulated" proposed endeavor will "produce a substantial positive impact on the economy, national security, and societal welfare." The Petitioner also points to several support letters provided by professionals in the industry and asserts these demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting 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 is required to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor will have national or even global implications within a particular field or the significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare or the advancement of valuable technology or a field of study. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that his proposed endeavor directly impacts numerous national initiatives promulgated through the White House, legislation, the DOE, the EPA, among other government entities. However, the Petitioner must demonstrate that his proposed endeavor would have a substantial national impact on these large government initiatives rather than just contribute to them in some way.
For instance, it is notable that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor emphasizes his development of "renewable energy projects," but he does not specify in his proposed endeavor the specific type of renewable energy he would focus on, such as solar, wind, or other renewable energy. The Petitioner points to an initial investment in his new consulting company of around $126,000 and discusses a proposed solar energy pilot project to be initiated in one of 20 counties with "high development potential." The Petitioner further emphasizes a memorandum of understanding he executed with a mining company in Alabama to explore the development of a solar energy project "that can supply clean power to [its] mineral operations and surrounding communities." However, it is not clear how one pilot project and one potential solar project with a mining company in two rural counties in the United States would result in a potential prospective national impact on numerous large government initiatives, including a stated $20 billion EPA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the Inflation Reduction Act and its $370 billion in investments to lower energy costs, and $9.7 billion renewable energy and energy efficiency programs through EERE, among numerous other large government initiatives discussed by the Petitioner on the record. Notably, the Petitioner does not submit detailed business plans related to either project, including indicating in what county his proposed pilot project p. 5 will take place. The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor will have national level impacts on economic development in rural communities in the United States but does not sufficiently support this assertion impact beyond his two potential projects in only two rural communities. It is also noteworthy that despite regularly discussing substantial funding through the EPA, the EERE, and the DOE, the Petitioner provided no supporting evidence to indicate that he had received any such government funding, or that he would be seeking to obtain it. The Petitioner's focus on numerous large government initiatives leaves substantial question as to whether his modest business plans would have nationallevel impact on any single government initiative.
Likewise, the Petitioner indicated that he would provide "innovative" renewable energy consulting services in thel Iarea, but he provides little detail on the nature of these services, how they would be innovative, or how they would have a substantial economic impact on this area. The Petitioner discussed innovative feasibility assessments, regulatory navigation, performance diagnostics, and financial modeling services, but did not describe these services in sufficient detail or how they would be innovative in his field. The Petitioner also did not submit sufficient supporting evidence to establish that his proposed consulting services would be innovative in his field, as he claimed. The Petitioner also discussed an initiative by the City o~ ISustainability Office to achieve an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. However, he did not clarify how he would have a substantial impact on this goal through his proposed consulting services. Without more specific probative evidence, it is uncertain that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have a national level impact on the reduction of greenhouse gases, lowering of energy costs, promulgation of renewable energies, or promotion of energy efficiency, as asserted. A mere potential contribution to various matters of national-level interest does not establish that a proposed endeavor is of national importance. The proposed endeavor must have broad and significant national implications. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value. See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications).
As a comparison, the petitioner in Dhanasar demonstrated that he conducted research and development in the field of air and space propulsion, more specifically, hypersonic propulsion systems involving speeds above Mach 5, and he had developed a novel method for accurately calculating hypersonic airflow. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 891-92. In addition, he submitted evidence reflecting that he would continue his research into designing and developing propulsion systems in nano-satellites, rocket-propelled ballistic missiles, and single-stage-to-orbit vehicles and provided substantial supporting evidence of how his continued research would assist the United States in maintaining its advantage over other nations in hypersonic flight, including documentation reflecting his receipt of funding from a government entity for his research. Id. Here, the Petitioner's assertions of potential prospective national importance are not sufficiently specific, and there is little indication that there is specific interest from the U.S. government regarding the advancement of his endeavor or that it would contribute significantly to the nation's ability to compete internationally in renewable energy.No interest from users, customers or investors
In support of the petition, the Petitioner emphasized several renewable energy executive orders and initiatives issued by the previous administration and now points to executive orders and initiatives emphasized by the current administration, such as the executive orders Declaring a National Energy Emergency and Unleashing American Energy. However, the executive orders issued by the current p. 6 administration make no mention of the focus of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, namely the expansion ofrenewable energy to underserved portions ofrural America. The current executive orders only discuss oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical minerals, and nuclear energy, and make no mention of the promotion of solar or other renewable energy. In fact, the current executive orders revoke many of the executive orders specific to the promotion of renewable energy discussed at length by the Petitioner. The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his proposed endeavor aligned with the newly discussed executive orders, let alone that his endeavor would have a broad and significant national impact on these new initiatives. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.Inconsistencies in the record Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she remains eligible for the benefit sought from the time of filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); Matter ofKazemi, 19 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1984) ("We have long held that an application for admission to the United States is a continuing application and admissibility is determined on the basis of the law and the facts existing at the time the application is finally considered.").
The Petitioner also points to several support letters provided by professionals in the industry and asserts these demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor. For instance, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner emphasized a support letter from Dr. M-G-, an economist, who stated that his platform could help "de-risk investment, reduce emissions, and unlock local co-benefits." However, it is not clear what "de-risking" investment or "unlocking local co-benefits means," or how his endeavor would have any national level impact on emissions. Dr. M-G- also discussed the Petitioner's endeavor resulting in "employment, grid resilience, and rural economic stimulation," but there is little indication as to the potential jobs his endeavor would create or how it would have a national impact on the resilience of the U.S. power grid. In sum, the provided support letters largely reiterate the Petitioner's assertions as to national importance and provide little additional support for the claimed potential prospective national impact of his proposed endeavor. Further, several of the support letters indicate that they do not know the Beneficiary and that they have never worked with him, leaving uncertainty as to their probative value. In addition, another support letter from a chief financial officer at an energy company discussed "recent federal rollbacks for renewables," leaving further question as to the potential national importance ofthe Petitioner's endeavor. Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, USCIS is not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988).
Lastly, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Dhansar at 890. The Petitioner emphasized that his proposed consulting company in the I Iarea would positively impact a region including 27 areas designated by law for economic redevelopment through the "Opportunity Zone program." However, as discussed by SCOPS, the Petitioner did not provide detailed employment and financial projections for his proposed consulting company. The Petitioner also did not specify in which of the 27 opportunity zone areas in thel larea his proposed company would operate, and in tum, the jobs it would generate.
Therefore, it is not evident how the company's economic activity would have a significant impact on job creation and empower small businesses and underserved communities. In fact, given the amount of opportunity zones in the I I area, the Petitioner has not established how his largely p. 7 unexplained business would have a significant impact on any of the 27 opportunity zones, let alone a significant national economic impact. The Petitioner did not submit sufficiently specific and targeted business plans to demonstrate broad-based national level impact. Although any basic economic activity resulting from the Petitioner's work has the potential to positively impact a local economy, he has not provided sufficient explanation of the prospective national impact directly attributable to his proposed work or sufficiently established how his endeavor would significantly impact an economically depressed area.
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.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).
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.S(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 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.