seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and an individual of exceptional ability, 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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver ofthe required job offer, and thus ofa 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 their proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
The Petitioner is a founder o±1 Ia cybersecurity academy that he has registered in and intends to headquarter in Florida. The Petitioner proposes to act as the CEO and head consultant fo~ I Through I I the Petitioner aims to "help both individuals and small- and medium-size[d] businesses learn how to protect their online information from cyberattacks." To achieve this goal, I Iintends to offer seminars, both onsite and online, and "customized consulting services to business owners on how to leverage effective cybersecurity tools."
SCOPS found the Petitioner qualifies as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree. As such, we need not consider the Petitioner's assertions on appeal that he has also demonstrated he is an individual ofexceptional ability for underlying EB-2 visa classification purposes. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest.
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. 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. SCOPS determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and we agree.
SCOPS concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. at 889. This consideration may include whether the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90.
The Petitioner asserts that SCOPS engaged in a "fundamentally flawed evaluation," as [k]ey evidence was either ignored or misunderstood, including the impact on a field [that] the government has described as having national importance." On appeal, the Petitioner asserts he has submitted evidence demonstrating "the profound impact of his work in cybersecurity and its far-reaching implications for national security and economic stability." In asserting the need to combat cyber threats, the Petitioner highlights the recognition by the USCIS Policy Manual ofthe importance of STEM field advancement, the "essential role of individuals with advanced degrees in driving innovation and progress," and evidence that the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation Internet Crime Complaint Center received 800,944 complaints in 2022. The Petitioner asserts that his STEM science degree and the focus ofhis proposed endeavor on cybersecurity demonstrate the "critical significance of his proposed endeavor." The p. 3 Petitioner also asserts his business plan "along with authoritative sources such as the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation, Forbes, IBIS World Reports, the USCIS Policy Manual, and White House initiatives, collectively demonstrate the profound impact of his work in cybersecurity and its far-reaching implications for national security and economic stability." However, the "authoritative sources" highlighted by the Petitioner refer generally to the importance of cybersecurity and STEM fields and do not reference the Petitioner or otherwise demonstrate "the profound impact" of his personal work in cybersecurity. Through his business plan, the Petitioner has not provided evidence demonstrating that his proposed consulting and training activities would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance.Plan or projections not corroborated And, while we acknowledge the importance of the cybersecurity field, the determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of cybersecurity in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."Proposed endeavor too vague Id. at 889. The Petitioner asserts thatl !intends to focus on economically distressed areas such as Florida, which dealt with "economic challenged caused by recent hurricanes" in 2022. The Petitioner contends that I Iprojections of creating 14 direct employee positions and 1,410 indirect employee positions by its fifth year of business, along with income and payroll tax contributions exceeding $117,000, constitute significant contributions to the U.S. economy. The Petitioner also claims that the above data from his business plan, in addition to letters of support that provide "evidence of job creation and industry growth directly resulting from the Petitioner's work" demonstrate the "broad reach" ofhis proposed endeavor and its "positive effects on economically depressed areas by fostering employment opportunities and stimulating local economies." However, the Petitioner's business plan does not elaborate on its employment and financial projections, as they are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved. The Petitioner has also not demonstrated thatl ~ture staffing levels and business activity projections stand to provide substantial economic benefits to Florida or other parts of the United States that would reach the level of substantial positive economic benefits contemplated by Dhanasar.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Id. at 890. The Petitioner also asserts the submitted letters of support "provide evidence ofjob creation and industry growth directly resulting from the Petitioner's work." However, while these letters of support attest to the high quality of the Petitioner's work and the strength and depth of his knowledge base, they only reference job creation or indu~wth insofar as several authors indicate they have discussed the possibility of doing work for L___J with the Petitioner. It is noted that the Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in the field, as well as interest from potential customers relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. Here, the issue at hand is whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong.
The Petitioner asserts that beyond his direct contributions to cybersecurity, his work is "elevating industry standards, fostering technological innovation, and enhancing community welfare." The Petitioner contends that the small and medium-sized businesses that he intends to service have a critical need for cybersecurity training and rely upon the Petitioner's company to support their growth. Overall, the Petitioner asserts the submitted evidence establishes that his proposed endeavor will create "growth, economic impact, job creation, and societal contributions." However, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of his work. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate I Iactivities would rise to the level of impacting his field more broadly. And while any company's economic activities or educational programs have the potential to p. 4 positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor stands to generate substantial positive economic effects in the region where his company will operate or other parts of the United States. Accordingly, we concur with SCOPS that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact the field of cybersecurity, the nation's cybersecurity initiatives, national security, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.No broader implications shown
Overall, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, particularly in an economically depressed area; has other substantial positive economic effects; has national or even global implications within the field; or has other broader implications indicating national importance.
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs and Ineligibility
As our finding on this issue is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and reserve whether the Petitioner has met the additional prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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 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 ofa 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.