Business executive

The Petitioner, a business executive, 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).

SCOPS denied the petition. SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. However, SCOPS concluded that the record does not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement, 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 ofproof 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 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.

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 the proposed endeavor; and
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.

Id.

Analysis

SCOPS found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. However, for the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id.

The Petitioner proposes to operate a computer software company that will develop software that collects data about computer application users' normal mouse movements, keyboard typing cadence and rhythm, mobile device handling, use of proxies and virtual private networks, and navigational patterns. The software would then compare normal data to activity at a given moment to detect suspicious account activity in real time. The Petitioner's business plan states that this software "can be customized to fit the unique needs of each client, regardless of their size or sector" and that, although the company will be based in California, it will provide the software to clients throughout the United States.

The Petitioner's business plan in the records consists of arbitrary and unsubstantiated financial estimates that cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of the plan, and on that of the record in general.Claims not backed by documents See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988) (providing that doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition). For example, the plan anticipates revenue in the amounts of $500,000, $1,000,000, $1,500,000 $3,000,000, and $5,000,000 in the company's first five years of operations, respectively. However, the plan does not elaborate on the "suite of services" the company would offer clients beyond abstract consultation and training to use the software, the price the company would charge clients for any particular service it would provide, the number of clients to whom the company would provide certain services at a given time in order to calculate any particular revenue figure, and the basis for the company's revenue increasing so dramatically and so consistently.

The business plan draws attention to the arbitrariness ofits annual revenue growth estimates. The plan purports to share "key statistics" about some unspecified "industry at a glance," with "annual growth 2017-2022 [at] 8.8% [and] annual growth 2022-2027 [at] 2.0%," without establishing the source of this information. Neither the plan nor the remainder of the record reconciles how the Petitioner's startup company would experience annual growth at 200%, 150%, 200%, and 166% in its second through fifth years ofoperations, respectively, when some unidentified source in the same plan claims industrywide growth-presumably the same industry in which the company would operate-allegedly would be 2% during the relevant period, and that it was less than 10% during a recent five-year span. As another example of the business plan's arbitrary and unsubstantiated financial estimates, the staffing plan indicates that the company would employ five workers-including the Petitioner-in its first year of operations, increasing to 16 workers in the fifth year of operations. However, despite the number of workers-and presumably their activities-tripling, the business plan's profit and loss p. 3 statement claims the company's "office expenses," "rent expenses," "technology," "utilities," and "insurance" costs would remain flat across all five years of operations.

Additional documents in the record present inconsistent statements regarding the location(s) in which the Petitioner proposes to undertake the proposed endeavor.Inconsistencies in the record In October 2025, the Petitioner responded to SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE), claiming that his company "is headquartered in D I I ZIP code, a federally distressed community." However, in Part 6. Basic Information About the Proposed Employment, on the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, filed earlier that year, he stated that his worksite location's street number and name would be "[s]ame as part l," wherein he provided his residential address inl lCalifornia. Likewise, a copy of the company's articles of incorporation filed with the State of California Office of the Secretary of State inl 12023, in the record, provides the company's principal street address and its mailing address, which both match the Petitioner's residential address inl lCalifornia, that he indicated on the Form I-140. 2 Then, a contract in the record between the Petitioner's company and._______________., dated August 2024, indicates that the company would lease a virtual office service with an address inl lCalifornia, in ZIP codel lfor an initial six-month period, followed by an indefinite month-to-month period.

The record does not establish that the Petitioner's company changed its principal street address from his residential address in I l California, to some unspecified location generally "in D .__________,ZIP code" between November 2023 and October 2025, nor does it establish that, at some point between August 2024 and October 2025, the Petitioner leased office spaces-whether virtual or otherwise-in ZIP codel linstead of, or in addition to, leasing virtual office services in ZIP code I l while he meanwhile provided on the Form I-140 filed in 2025 that his worksite location would be at his own residence. Furthermore, the record does not reconcile what the business plan's claimed "office expenses," "rent expenses," and "utilities" would be if the company would operate out of the Petitioner's residence and use a virtual office service, as the record indicates. Petitioners must resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. Here, the recprd does not resolve the inconsistent information regarding whether the companx would operate "inl IZIP code," or out of the Petitioner's residence inl JCalifornia, using virtual office services in ZIP codel I, and whether-and why-it would incur "office expenses," "rent expenses," and "utilities" in the claimed amounts. See id.

We further note that the business plan's stated "hiring plans" are inconsistent with its general operating plan. The business plan indicates, "The development phase of the platform will be characterized by rigorous testing and refinement." However, the hiring plan claims that it will employ only one generalized "technology staff' worker in the first year of operations, increasing by one in each of the four following years to a total of five. Neither the business plan nor the remainder of the record reconciles how the company could generate $500,000 in revenue in the first year of operations by selling access to computer software, apparently developed by a single "technology staff'' worker, that 2 The Petitioner provided the same address on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, which indicates that he has not relocated in the interim. p. 4 had yet to undergo "rigorous testing and refinement," nor does it establish what the four additional "technology staff' workers would do after the initial worker apparently developed, tested, and refined the software alone in the first year of operations.

For the foregoing reasons, the arbitrary and unsubstantiated claims in the business plan in general, and its financial estimates more specifically, cast doubt on its reliability and sufficiency and that of the remainder of the record. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. The business plan, its financial estimates, and its staffing claims are material to determining whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance because they inform whether-and the extent to which-the endeavor may have potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial positive economic effects. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90.

The Petitioner also submitted, in relevant part, an opinion letter and copies of publications that provide generalized information regarding information technology.Support letters generic or unsupported

SCOPS found that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required in part by the first Dhanasar prong; however, SCOPS concluded that the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as also required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. More specifically, SCOPS noted that the opinion letter and the copies of publications that provide generalized information regarding information technology address the industry in which the Petitioner proposes to work but they do not address the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake. SCOPS discussed the business plan's "various staffing and revenue projections" and the omission of "details showing their basis or an explanation as to how they will be realized." SCOPS also observed that, although the proposed endeavor may benefit the Petitioner's company's particular clients, the record does not establish how the endeavor may have broader implications indicative of national importance.No broader implications shown SCOPS farther determined that the record does not satisfy the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See id.

Because we determine that the record does not establish the proposed endeavor has national importance, which is dispositive, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 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 an applicant is otherwise ineligible).

On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS mischaracterized the proposed endeavor and erroneously deemed his description as "vague."3 The Petitioner also claims, in relevant part, that SCOPS improperly imposed a "heightened, non-Dhanasar evidentiary standard" and that SCOPS "discount[ed] probative evidence through speculation and heightened expectations inconsistent with Matter of Chawathe and Matter of Dhanasar."Proposed endeavor too vague The Petitioner also states that SCOPS "erred by discounting endeavor-specific evidence and focusing instead on the generalized importance of the 3 Many of the Petitioner's objections on appeal relate to language in SCOPS' RFE. However, the scope of an appeal addresses the unfavorable decision, not any prior RFE or other notice. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(ii). Therefore, we limit our analysis to the Petitioner's claims regarding the unfavorable decision, not the RFE. p. 5 industry, rather than evaluating the prospective national impact of [his] specific endeavor as presented in the record."

In determining national importance under the first Dhanasar prong, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the [individual] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90.

We recognize the importance of progress in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and the essential role of persons with advanced STEM degrees in fostering this progress, especially in focused critical and emerging technologies or other STEM areas important to U.S. competitiveness or national security. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. However, as in all cases, a proposed endeavor implicating a STEM field must demonstrate not only substantial merit but also national importance, such as by having national or even global implications within a particular field, beyond merely being in a STEM field. See generally id.; see also Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90.

The Petitioner's objection to SCOPS' statement in the denial notice that he "intends to work as a 'Chief Executive"' does not present an erroneous statement of fact. In Part 6. Basic Information About the Proposed Employment, of the Form I-140, the Petitioner stated that his proposed job title would be "Chief Executive Officer." Likewise, the business plan repeatedly indicates that the Petitioner would be the company's "CEO." Thus, SCOPS correctly stated in the denial notice that the Petitioner "intends to work as a 'Chief Executive."' In turn, although the record-particularly in a portion of the "technical whitepaper" the Petitioner submitted in response to SCOPS' RFE-ultimately provides informative statements regarding what the Petitioner specifically proposes to do, SCOPS' observation that the record in general is "vague" is an accurate characterization.

Next, we note that, contrary to the Petitioner's claims on appeal, SCOPS' decision is consistent with Matter ofChawathe, which provides in relevant part that petitioners must demonstrate that their claims are "'more likely than not' or 'probably' true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (quoting INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987)). Particularly given the extent to which the record's reliability and sufficiency is diminished as explained above, SCOPS reasonably concluded that the Petitioner's various unsubstantiated claims do not meet Matter of Chawathe's preponderance of the evidence standard.

Although the Petitioner states on appeal that SCOPS "erred by discounting endeavor-specific evidence and focusing instead on the generalized importance of the industry, rather than evaluating the prospective national impact of [his] specific endeavor as presented in the record," much of the evidence the Petitioner submitted addresses the generalized importance of the industry and not the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's See Matter p. 6 of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. For example, the Petitioner submitted articles that provide generalized information regarding information technology, but are silent on the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how the specific endeavor may have broader implications indicative of national importance, as follows:

• "How AI Fraud Detection Can Protect Your Business";
• "Google Is Using On-Device AI to Spot Scam Texts and Investment Fraud";
• "Fraud Detection: Its Importance & How to Choose the Right System";
• "Cyber Fraud: Real-Life Examples and Prevention Strategies";
• "Using AI and Machine Leaming to Reduce Government Fraud";
• "AI Tools Helped Treasury Recover Billions in Fraud and Improper Payments";
• "GA Overview: Fraud in the Federal Government - Challenges Determining the Extent of Federal Fraud";
• "The Economic Impact of Cyberattacks in the United States";
• "Rising Threats Pose Serious Concerns for Financial Stability";
• "Cybersecurity Market Report 2024-2030";
• "The Devastating Business Impacts of a Cyber Breach";
• "Types of Cyber Risks Businesses Should Be Aware Of';
• "Cyber Fraud: A Challenge for Enterprise Security";
• "Annual Number of Data Compromises and Individuals Impacted in the United States from 2005 to 2024";
• "Highest Losses Through Cybercrime in the United States in 2024, by State";
• "Effective Fraud Detection in E-Commerce: Leveraging Machine Leaming and Big Data Analytics"; and
• "Online Banking Fraud Detection Model: Decentralized Machine Leaming Framework to Enhance Effectiveness and Compliance with Data Privacy Regulations."

Similarly, the Petitioner submitted many documents from U.S. government sources that provide generalized information about information technology but do not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how the specific endeavor may have broader implications indicative of national importance. And, as SCOPS explained, although the Petitioner submitted an opinion letter from a professor of accounting, the letter focuses on how the Petitioner "will work in an area of substantial merit and national importance," rather than articulating how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have broader implications within a particular field ( emphasis added). See id. As noted above, in determining whether a proposed endeavor may have national importance, the importance of the industry, field, profession, or area in which a petitioner will work is not the focus; rather, whether the specific endeavor a petitioner proposes to undertake may have broader implications indicative ofnational importance is the material question. See id. Thus, although the Petitioner objects to SCOPS' decision "focusing ... on [ evidence pertaining to] the generalized importance of the industry, rather than evaluating the prospective national impact of [his] specific endeavor," SCOPS appears to have done so because much of the evidence the Petitioner submitted focuses on the generalized importance of the industry.

To the extent that the record may be deemed reliable and sufficient, it indicates that the proposed endeavor of providing software "customized to fit the unique needs of each client" may benefit the startup software company, its unspecified number of clients or customers, and the also unstated p. 7 number ofindividuals and entities who may use the products or services of the Petitioner's company's clients or customers. However, the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have national or even global implications within the field of information technology or any other field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. On the contrary, both the business plan and the generalized publications indicate that many other computer software companies already research, develop, or provide the same or similar features that the Petitioner states his company's software would provide. The record does not establish how the Petitioner's startup information technology company would be distinguishable from other companies and software that either already, or would, provide the same or similar features he proposes, to indicate broader implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong.

In tum, the business plan claims the company would employ 16 workers including the Petitioner within its first five years of operations. However, as noted above, the record does not establish where the company would operate and where those individuals would be located, which precludes a meaningful analysis of the significance of employing 16 workers-with generalized job titles such as "technology staff'-in any particular location. Relatedly, the arbitrary and unsubstantiated financial estimations and inconsistent information regarding the location where the Petitioner's company would operate undermine a meaningful analysis of what the proposed endeavor's economic effects may be, where they would be realized, and whether they would be substantial or even positive. See id.

In summation, considering the record in its entirety, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver.

Conclusion

As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect ofthe decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(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 of the Act through the issuance of a Form 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.