The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in commercial management, 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).
The Acting Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 ofChrista's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015).
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, she did not meet the national importance requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 884. Because this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Law
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Next, a petitioner must then establish that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent p. 2 regulations define the term "national interest," 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 ofdiscretion, 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.
Analysis
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
The Petitioner states that she has more than 20 years of experience in sales of health insurance and commercial management. In 2020, the Petitioner formed her own company in the United States, I lto provide insurance and wealth management products to U.S. citizens.
She states that she intends to continue her career in her company as a financial and commercial consultant "provid[ing] guidance and direction in the areas of finance, business management, negotiation, sales forecasting, market and establishment ofpolicies and programs for U.S. companies, individuals, and businesses that are in the financial, commercial and sales sectors for insurance, pensions and risk-free investments."
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of her education and experience, a personal statement describing her proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national interest waiver, a business plan dated December 2020, recommendation and support letters, and an expert opinion letter. She also submitted industry reports and articles discussing the benefits of entrepreneurship and the important role of immigrant entrepreneurs in the U.S. economy.
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish her eligibility for the national interest waiver. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes an updated personal statement and copies of evidence already in the record. She states that her endeavor is to help U.S. companies find investment opportunities that will benefit the United States on a national and global level, as follows: National Level: Strategically manage and grow sales, partner ecosystem, product contracts, and partnership for U.S. companies nationwide to increase revenues, which will grow and flourish due to my Commercial Management expertise.
Global Level: Facilitate sales of financial products, negotiation of contracts and projects between the U.S., Latin America and Spanish and Portuguese speaking 1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
countries such as Spain and Portugal. This will be marketed strategically and exclusively through my vast experience in Commercial Management.
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that the company will employ 12 employees in its first five years. The plan states that the Petitioner will invest her own personal fonds totaling $20,000 in the first year and will reinvest $20,000 of the company's profits in each of the following four years. Regarding financial predictions, the Petitioner's business plan predicts total revenue of $4.6 million by its fifth year providing insurance and wealth management products through business units in Florida and Illinois. 3
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Acting Director determined that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, she concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor had national importance, that she was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification The Acting Director stated that the Petitioner's business plan, although asserting that it would employ 12 individuals, "did not explain or support the business need for additional employees [or] sufficiently demonstrate how this amount of employees would constitute a significant potential to employ U.S. workers."Job creation or economic claims unsupported The Acting Director farther noted that the record did not include evidence to demonstrate how the financial predictions in the business plan would contribute to the national economy. The Acting Director also noted that the support letters in the record did not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has influenced the industry or otherwise served as an impetus for progress in the field.Past record does not show influence or success The Acting Director farther stated that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's business will have a regional or national impact at a level consistent with having national importance, or that the Petitioner's work will have broader implications in his field of endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague Additionally, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate national interest factors such as the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit of her prospective contributions to the United States, an urgent national interest in her contributions, the potential creation ofjobs, or that her self-employment does not adversely affect U.S. workers.No urgency shown On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Acting Director "did not apply the proper standard of proof in this case, instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applied the law." In her brief on appeal, the Petitioner references evidence already in the record and states that this evidence demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that she merits a national interest waiver. 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. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 3 The Petitioner's business is located inl Florida. The business plan states that by 2022 the business will open offices inl IFlorida andl . IIllinois, and includes laps of Tose areas from the U.S. Small Business I Association's HUBZone I Program. However, we note that the map of is titled ,j ~• and the map of lis o~ Massachusetts, rather than any city in Illinois. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.Inconsistencies in the record Matter ofHo, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). I p. 4 as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. 4 In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Id. In Dhanasar, we farther 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.
Although the Petitioner submits articles and industry reports describing the importance of entrepreneurship on economic growth, many ofthese reports are not specific to the field ofcommercial management. 5 One report from The New England Council, titled 'The New England Financial Services Industry: Around the Corder and Around the World," does focus on financial management, an area within the Petitioner's field of endeavor. However, the report is dated 2017, more than six years ago, and only focuses on New England, while the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is in Florida. Additional reports discuss the achievements of immigrants as entrepreneurs but are not specific to the Petitioner's field or the location of her proposed endeavor. When 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." See id. at 889. Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the importance of entrepreneurship generally, rather than her specific proposed endeavor. Even considering the articles, reports, and statistics collectively and in the totality of circumstances, we still conclude that they do not support a finding that her specific proposed endeavor has national importance.
The Petitioner also submits her business plan dated December 2020 to support the national importance of her proposed endeavor. As noted, to establish national importance, the Petitioner must demonstrate the proposed endeavor's impact. 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. at 889. Although the Petitioner states that her experience in commercial management will contribute to the U.S. economy, she has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence. The projections of the Petitioner's company's revenue and job creation as stated in the business plan are also unsupported in the record.Claims not backed by documents Although the record does include the Petitioner's company's 2021 federal tax return, the return covers only the first year of the business and reflects only the Petitioner's initial investment of $20,000 with no additional income. Further, the tax return lists no salaries or wages paid, although the Petitioner's business plan projected hiring six employees in 2021. The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use ofthe Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting her own company and clients or have broader implications within the field of commercial 4 The Petitioner erroneously states on appeal that the Acting Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor "is not of substantial merit."Benefits limited to an employer or its clients However, the Acting Director stated in the decision, "You submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that your proposed endeavor has substantial merit." We agree that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit.
I management. The record does not establish that her proposed endeavor stands to impact the field as a whole.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's
The Petitioner also submits an expert opinion prepared b !university ofNew York, as well as recommendation letters from current and former employers praising the Petitioner's education, experience, past success, personal qualities, and the results she achieved. However, these qualities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, that the individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong.
We acknowledge that the expert opinion includes an analyis of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In his analysisI states, "[The Petitioner's] expertise in this area is of substantial merit and national importance for U.S. companies doing business or planning to do business in Brazil." However, he does not elaborate on how U.S. business involvement in Brazil and Latin America will have a prospective impact on the United States, including the national or global implications on commercial management, the potential to employ U.S. workers, or the positive economic effects.
Additionally, we note that the Petitioner states in her personal statement, "Overall, my direct knowledge of marketing and sales will benefit any U.S. company that needs my professional experience in Consulting and Commercial Management that seeks to reach specific audiences in Brazil and Latin America." However, she does not describe how she intends to assist U.S. businesses seeking projects in Brazil or Latin America, as the expert opinion discusses. Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, USCIS is not required to accept it or may give it less weight. See Matter ofSea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817 (Comm'r 1988).
On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon the evidence she previously submitted and asserts that the Acting Director imposed a "stricter standard, and erroneously applied the law," and did not consider the evidence objectively. The Petitioner does not identify the Acting Director's standard or erroneous applications of law. Nor does the Petitioner identify which evidence was not considered. The Petitioner continues to rely upon the asserted merits of the services she will provide, her personal and professional qualities and achievements, and the importance of entrepreneurship. However, as set forth above, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further discussion of the balancing factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining Dhanasar prongs. 6 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in 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.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.