The Petitioner, a special education coordinator, 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualified for a national interest waiver. 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 l&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 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. If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, he or she must then establish that he or she merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Id. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&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 to be discretionary in nature).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 2
Analysis
SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner qualified as an individual holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined on appeal 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. The record indicates that the Petitioner has held positions in Venezuela as a teacher and as a special education coordinator. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to establish a comprehensive special education consultancy and support service in Texas. The Petitioner initially described her proposed endeavor as follows:
The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, providing instruction, coordination, and training for educational initiatives focused on child welfare and disabled children. This initiative aims to elevate the quality of special education programs and support services by developing and updating curriculum materials, offering professional development workshops for educators, providing comprehensive parent education and support, fostering research and innovation in the field, advocating for inclusive policies, collaborating with school districts, and hosting symposiums on special education. Leveraging the petitioner's extensive experience in special education, psychoeducational evaluation, and behavior therapy, this initiative seeks to significantly improve the educational experiences and outcomes for students with disabilities while advancing the national understanding and implementation of best practices in special education.
Although SCOPS determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and that she is well positioned to advance the endeavor, SCOPS concluded the record did not establish that the endeavor is of national importance or that it would be beneficial to the United States to grant a waiver of the job offer requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS "interpretation appears too narrow in its analysis of national importance," and that SCOPS "misinterpreted the scope of 'national importance,' as outlined in Dhanasar, since the proposed endeavor has national importance and has the potential to resonate globally, particularly within the realm of [special] education." Upon review, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her endeavor in order to establish her eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
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. We agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner established her proposed endeavor has substantial merit.
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The relevant question is not the importance of 2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. p. 3 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." Id. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" ofthe 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.
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted letters of support and an expert opinion letter discussing her past work and her skills, abilities, and commitment to her work. However, evidence of work experience generally relates not to the national importance of an endeavor, as discussed in the first prong of Matter ofDhanasar, but to the second,3 which evaluates whether an individual is well-positioned to advance an endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague As such, these letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner also provided in response to the RFE the following clarification of her proposed endeavor, which is to operate her own education coordination business, or learning hub: The proposed endeavor ... holds significant potential to positively impact the U.S. economy by creating employment opportunities for American workers. The establishment of this hub will necessitate hiring a diverse team of professionals, including special education teachers, educational psychologists, speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, and administrative staff This influx of jobs provides employment and stimulates local economies through increased spending and the utilization of local services and supplies . . . . The need for skilled professionals in special education and related fields is increasing, and this initiative helps to meet that demand.
The hub will foster partnerships with local businesses, educational institutions, and community organizations as it expands its services. These collaborations enhance the support network for children with diverse abilities and drive economic activity within the community. The hub's commitment to using local suppliers for goods and services further bolsters the local economy, creating a ripple effect of economic growth and stability. Moreover, the endeavor contributes to the nation's broader economic health by preparing a more skilled and inclusive workforce. Children who receive the specialized support they need are better equipped to succeed academically and socially, ultimately becoming productive members of society. This long-term investment in 3 Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, determinations concerning the second and third prongs are unnecessary to the ultimate decision; therefore, they will be reserved in this decision. p. 4 education reduces future costs associated with unemployment and underemployment, benefiting the economy as a whole.
The proposed endeavor ... stands to enhance societal welfare in several meaningful ways broadly. The hub's focus on inclusive education and support for children with diverse abilities addresses a crucial gap in the current educational system.
[The hub's] approach to personalized education plans, comprehensive support services, and community engagement offers a holistic solution that enhances these students' educational outcomes and social integration. The hub sets a benchmark for quality and effectiveness in special education by implementing evidence-based practices and fostering inclusive learning environments.
Globally, the principals [sic] and methodologies employed by [the hub] can serve as a model or other countries facing similar challenges in special education. As countries strive to meet international standards for education ... the hub's approach can provide valuable insights and strategies for creating inclusive and supportive learning environments for all students.
While the Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide valuable educational services to students with special needs, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. For example, while she has described in general terms the services that her business would provide, she has not identified any specific "approach" or unique "methodologies" that her business would utilize to differentiate itself from similar businesses already present in the education sector to achieve a level of national importance in the field. The Petitioner mainly relies on the significance of the field of special education to demonstrate the importance of her specific endeavor, rather than any prospective positive impact resulting from the endeavor itself Again, it is not the overall importance of the industry or field in which the Petitioner intends to work, but the particular endeavor on which the Petitioner intends to embark that we consider in evaluating whether it is of national importance.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889
Although an endeavor that is shown to have significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare may be considered to have national importance, 4 here, the Petitioner has described worthy but broad ambitions without demonstrating how she would operate an educational coordination service with the far-reaching influence and level of impact she has envisioned. The Petitioner has not provided evidence of how, for example, her individual business in Texas would specifically impact purported nationwide or worldwide gaps in education for certain student populations, nor has she demonstrated that her services would offer benefits that extend beyond her own business to impact the field ofspecial 4 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual at F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. p. 5 education or U.S. societal welfare more broadly at a level commensurate with national 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.
Concerning the purported economic impact of the Petitioner's business, while her statements and information in her business plan generally speculate that her company would create jobs in the United States, she did not provide independent evidence or otherwise explain how her business would create jobs at a level that would have a significant impact on a given region or have a prospective national impact on a specific field.Job creation or economic claims unsupported For example, although her business plan provides cashflow amounts for her business's fifth year of operation to be between $176,381 and $304,353, stating that the business expects to employ at least eight full-time and seven part-time employees by that year, the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.
Furthermore, while the Petitioner contends on appeal that her proposed endeavor stands to benefit the U.S. economy, she has not shown that her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. The Petitioner's business plan relies on growth assumptions that are not corroborated by probative evidence to demonstrate how the business would operate a scale to achieve the anticipated outcomes she has described. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not indicate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's education coordination services would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, she has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The petition will remain denied.
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 p. 6 may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.