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. 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 Petitioner did not demonstrate that she merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement 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) of the 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
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
The Director determined that while the Petitioner established that her proposed endeavor has substantial merit, she did not establish that her endeavor is of national importance, that she is wellpositioned to advance her endeavor, or that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 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. The Petitioner asserts that for over 25 years she has led a Brazilian company specialized in importing electronic Icomponrts and equipment from the United States. She maintains that her "proposed endeavor, LLC, builds upon the successful business model she has already developed in Brazil." Specifically, she explains that her proposed endeavor is to:
[E]stablish and expand I ILLC (the "Company"), a business dedicated to procuring electronic parts and equipment from U.S. manufacturers and exporting them to Brazil. The products involved include communications equipment, semiconductors, circuits, and software, among other essential electronic components. By serving as an intermediary,! ILLC will facilitate access to international markets for U.S.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS erred by "mischaracteriz[ing] the nature of [her] proposed endeavor by reducing it to merely 'becoming a chief executive officer of her own company."' She argues that her "endeavor directly aligns with U.S. economic and trade priorities ... and [t]he record explains howl I LLC will expand market access for U.S. manufacturers, particularly SMBs, helping them navigate trade regulations, reduce compliance costs, and access high-demand foreign markets." She farther "note[s] that [SCOPS"] own decision acknowledged that the endeavor 'will provide effective support to one of the country's most important industries' - the U.S. electronic supply chain- yet paradoxically denied the petition."
The Petitioner relies primarily on the importance of small businesses, the demand for U.S. electronic components, and supply chains in the U.S. economy; however, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's Id. at 889. A petitioner may present a proposed endeavor that focuses on an area with significant merit but still fall short ofdemonstrating that their specific endeavor has a potential prospective impact in that area that is commensurate with national importance. We recognize the value of the expanding global markets for U.S. products and supply chains in the United States; however, establishing a business in an important sector ofthe U.S. economy is insufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence - aside from claims in her statements and business plan coupled with statistics regarding U.S. exports to Brazil, U.S. dominance in global markets, and supply chains - that her company's activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to the I I Florida area or the United States.Job creation or economic claims unsupported The Petitioner's statements include the following claims: (i) by expanding market access, her endeavor will increase production and exports which "will necessitate additional workforce hiring, not only withinl ILLC but across the entire supply chain;" (ii) "manufacturers, freight companies, customs brokers, and legal and financial service providers will experience growing demand for skilled professionals" and "[b ]y streamlining access to global markets, she will enable small and medium-sized manufacturers to compete on an international scale;" and (iii) her company will increase the export domestic products and thus decrease the U.S. trade deficit." Broad statements and projections regarding the prospective role that her company will play in the U.S. economy and "global markets" do not demonstrate the prospective impact directly attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor; how her endeavor has the potential to provide economic, societal, and security benefits to the United States; or establish how her endeavor will impact the industry beyond her company's customers and the operations of the business.
We have also considered the Petitioner's claim that her proposed endeavor will have ripple effects on the local or national economy. The Petitioner contends that based on RIMS II multipliers, her company is expected to reach a final demand impact in output, equivalent to $6,083,180 in Year 5. However, this claim is based upon the Regional Input-Output Modeling System, a regional economic model which is a tool used by investors, planners, and elected officials to objectively assess the potential economic impacts of various regional projects - not to assess the expected economic impact of a nascent international export business. Further, the Petitioner claims that her company will "increase the export of domestic products and thus decrease the U.S. trade deficit." However, according to the U.S. Bureau ofEconomic Analysis and the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. trade deficit p. 4 is $78.3 billion. 3 While the Petitioner's company may stimulate economic activity at some level - and even assuming arguendo that the Petitioner's final demand impact in output is $6,083,180 - an estimated .007769% decrease in the U.S. trade deficit is a de minimis portion of the U.S. trade deficit. It is the Petitioner's burden to show that the economic effects of the proposed endeavor will be "substantial" and at a level commensurate with national importance. Here, the record does not contain sufficient relevant or probative evidence showing that the economic effects of the Petitioner's company's activities will be substantial or that the secondary or indirect economic benefits of her proposed endeavor would rise to that level.
Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. Further, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her business would benefit an economically depressed area. In the end, the economic benefits that the Petitioner claims will result from her endeavor depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between her proposed endeavor and the claimed economic results or establish or how her endeavor will impact the industry beyond her company's customers and the operations of the business.
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that she 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 ofa 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.
3 https ://www.bea.gov/ data/intl-trade-investment/international-trade-goods-and-services