The Petitioner, a public affairs consultant, 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. § l 153(b)(2).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is 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.
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
Analysis
SCOPS found that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, based upon obtaining the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree in legal studies followed by at least five years ofprogressive experience in the specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). SCOPS denied the petition, however, finding that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility under any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
As to the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner states:
My focus is to serve as a Public Relations Consultant in the United States, spearheading efforts to enhance companies' public image, fostering positive relationships with key stakeholders, and driving impactfol initiatives that will benefit several organizations across industries.
The Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor "holds significant potential for stimulating economic growth and job creation." He states that he will monitor and influence policy developments that impact the retail sector, advocate for favorable regulations and tax reforms to promote business growth and community prosperity, and promote sustainability initiatives and corporate social responsibility efforts. The Petitioner states that he will help his clients enhance their brand reputation, provide media relations and brand management services, and reputation management.
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. SCOPS found that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor but not its national importance.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS made factual errors in the decision, specifically in a paragraph in the decision which discusses a plan to hire 14 foll-time employees for a company based in Massachusetts. The Petitioner also asserts that SCOPS did not consider the entirety of the evidence in the record. Specifically, the Petitioner contends that, contrary to SCOPS' conclusions, the record does contain sufficient objective evidence of the quantifiable economic impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The Petitioner claims that his personal statement and plan, along with the evidence including case studies, media analytics, and third-party testimonials provide "objective metrics" and establish that the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's work as a public relations consultant goes beyond his potential clients and to the larger community.
First, as to the Petitioner's claim that the decision contains factual errors about the evidence in the record, we agree with the Petitioner that the language in the paragraph to which the Petitioner refers on appeal does not relate to the record and is in error. Accordingly, we withdraw the portion of p. 3 SCOPS' decision that refers to the establishment of a business in Massachusetts. However, in looking at the decision overall, we do not agree that this error is indicative of SCOPS' failure to otherwise properly analyze the record in this case. Rather, other than this error, SCOPS' decision refers to specific evidence in the record and is detailed in its analysis ofthat evidence and whether it establishes eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. Therefore, following review, we conclude that the decision is sufficient and specific enough to provide the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must folly explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Moreover, we conduct a de novo review and have considered the evidence in the record in foll. While we may not discuss each piece of evidence in the record in our decision, we have reviewed and considered each one.
Upon de novo review, we agree with SCOPS that the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. First, we conclude that the Petitioner's personal statement does not sufficiently demonstrate the endeavor's claimed economic impact and job creation estimates.Job creation or economic claims unsupported In his personal statement, submitted in response to the SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provides a chart in which he details the specific legislative changes which he lobbied for in his prior work in Brazil, the "annual average economic impact" ofthese changes and the "nature" ofthis impact. The Petitioner claims a total economic impact of $77 million USD generated in two years based upon his work. The Petitioner farther claims that, "[p ]rojecting this same performance over a five-year horizon, we would have a conservative estimate ofUSD $192.5 million in accumulated impact." The Petitioner provides another chart in which he estimates a "cumulative impact of USD $770 million" over the next five years, assuming an "average impact" of $38.5 million per project and a total of 20 projects.
Although the Petitioner claims that these numbers provide an objective basis to quantify the potential economic impact of his endeavor, the evidence in the record does not support the information in the charts provided. For the "annual average impact" amounts, the Petitioner does not explain the basis for the dollar amounts provided. Additionally, even if these legislative changes in Brazil did result in economic gains, the record does not sufficiently establish the extent to which the Petitioner is responsible for these changes. Finally, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established how any of these claimed impacts in Brazil relate to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the United States. The Petitioner's economic impact charts are not persuasive because the methodology used to create them is unclear and they are not otherwise supported by evidence.
Regarding the expert opinion letters, we conclude that they also do not help establish the national importance of the endeavor. One of the letters, written b Dr. Professor Emeritus of Strategy and Organization at the.__ ___________, describes the challenges facing the retail sector such as inflation, brand image issues, and supply chain issues. Dr.I I opines that the proposed endeavor is nationally important primarily based on the size of the retail industry. For example, he states that retail is the largest private-sector employer in the United States and that total retail sales have grown considerably in recent years. Dr.I I then asserts that because the Petitioner will focus on the retail industry and offer his consulting services in this industry, this "clearly indicates the impact of the retail sector, a prime economic driver of the nation, hence proving its importance." Finally, Dr. I I asserts that retail businesses "are an integral part of society" and describes the p. 4 importance of corporate transparency, advocating for consumer rights, consumer education, and supporting small businesses.
Dr. I lclaims primarily relate to the industry in which the Petitioner will work, rather than the potential prospective impact of the endeavor itself While we recognize the size of the industry in which the Petitioner will work, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The letter does not persuasively or credibly explain how the Petitioner's specific endeavor of offering public relations consulting services to his clients will have a broad impact on this industry.No broader implications shown
Another opinion letter, written by~-----------~ describes the objectives of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and states that the endeavor is nationally important in general, conclusory statements, but does not sufficiently support this claim.Support letters generic or unsupported For example, he writes that the Petitioner will work to "develop strategic partnerships and engage the industry," "promote sustainability and corporate social responsibility," and focus on "media relations management and brand building," and concludes that "[i]n this way, his work will significantly impact the American economy, promoting a more dynamic and competitive retail sector." But the writer's recitation of the Petitioner's goals and plans for his proposed endeavor is not sufficient on its own to demonstrate that the endeavor's potential impact rises to the level of national importance.Citation record not persuasive
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter ofCaron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, the opinion letters are of little probative value as they primarily discuss the impact of the retail sector in general and repeat the Petitioner's claims about his experience and the stated objectives of his endeavor, rather than credibly describing the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague
Finally, in reviewing the letters of recommendation, we acknowledge that they help show that the Petitioner is an experienced public affairs consultant in Brazil who appears to be well-respected by his colleagues and customers. One of the letter writers, a prior supervisor of the Petitioner, describes his contributions to the company, stating that the Petitioner "positively impacted countless people in different segments, with an emphasis on the area of tax mitigation," and that he "spearheaded a tax relief effort that saved the company's payroll by 1 billion reais." This letter writer states that the Petitioner "continues to be an exemplary professional who always dedicates himself to increasingly specializing in his field to qualify himself farther for any challenge." Another letter writer describes the Petitioner's contributions to reforming the framework that regulates the internet in Brazil. The writer states that the Petitioner "proactively organized and conducted meetings and hearings involving stakeholders" and that after "preparing and presenting the proposed amendments, [the Petitioner] persuaded the legislative body, resulting in his working group's acceptance of the revised text." However, the letters do not discuss the proposed endeavor or provide evidence of its potential prospective impact.
Although the Petitioner claims that the impact of prior work in Brazil is indicative of the potential impact of his endeavor, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's past achievements have resulted in a broad impact on the retail sector or the economy in Brazil, and the Petitioner's unsupported statement to the contrary is not sufficient to meet his burden of proof Moreover, we agree with SCOPS that the evidence of a petitioner's skills, knowledge, and record of success generally relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national" and whether they are well-positioned to advance it.Past record does not show influence or success Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. While a petitioner's past work and achievements can be helpful in illustrating how they plan to carry out their proposed endeavor and in some circumstances its potential to have a broad impact, in general the focus of the first prong is on the proposed endeavor itself and not the petitioner. See id. The issue here is whether the Petitioner's specific endeavor-offering public relations consulting for retail businesses-has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. The Petitioner has not provided evidence of achievements in the field that demonstrate that the endeavor has the potential to impact the field or the economy at a level commensurate with national importance.
Throughout the Petitioner's appeal brief: he repeats his claims that his proposed endeavor will create jobs, contribute to the economy, and offer significant benefits to the industry. Although the record reflects the Petitioner's experience in the field and his intention to provide valuable services to his clients, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level ofnational importance. In Matter ofDhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of national importance because they would not extend beyond his students to impact the education field more broadly. Id. at 893. The same is true here. The Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact the retail industry or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance.
The Petitioner's claims on appeal do not overcome the basis for SCOPS' findings as they relate to the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Moreover, upon de novo review, we agree that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Because the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar 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).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not met the national importance requirement of the first prong of Dhanasar. We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible 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 of the 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 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.