The Petitioner, a business consulting entrepreneur, 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner merited a waiver of the job offer and labor certification requirements for EB-2 classification. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
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 Petitioner seeks to open a management consulting, advisory, and training office in the __ I I region of Florida. The Petitioner provided a cover letter, business plan, educational records, letters of support, and other documentation to support her petition. The business plan forecasts revenue of $363,264 in year one, rising to $709,632 in year five. The plan also indicates the Petitioner intends to directly employ eight individuals and indirectly create 67 jobs by year five. The letters of support for the Petitioner highlight her experience and qualifications overseas and offer financial support as she begins business operations. The record is augmented by industry and government reports on the importance of the consulting industry as a whole and investing in underserved communities.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet her burden of proof to establish that her endeavor would provide sufficient economic or industry effects to rise to the level of national importance, that she was well placed to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it was in the best interest of the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements for EB-2 classification.
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision as it relates to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case).
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 as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
On appeal, the Petitioner states that she is providing updated and new evidence to support her petition and demonstrate the economic impact of her proposed endeavor. While she makes several references to new financial forecasts and detailed case studies of similar business, this evidence was not submitted on appeal. The Petitioner also emphasizes the importance of operating in an economically depressed area and helping to bolster the local economy in line with national initiatives.
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not establish that her proposed endeavor would have a significant economic impact rising to the level of national importance or substantially benefit the field of management consulting.Job creation or economic claims unsupported To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. Although the Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide management consulting services for her future clients, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national p. 3 importance. In Dhanasar we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, we find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her potential employers, her company, and clientele to impact the management consulting field or U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the United States. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 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 management consulting projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofher eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose.
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe 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.