The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 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).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 ofChristo'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.
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. See 1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). p. 2 generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. If a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree ofexpertise and will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States. 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,2 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 the Petitioner qualified for the requested EB-2 immigrant classification, but farther concluded she did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
A. National Interest Waiver
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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id.
The record reflects that the Petitioner intends to operate her own company,.____________. to provide comprehensive human resource consulting services to enhance the capabilities of U.S. businesses. Specifically, the Petitioner asserted that her company would improve organizational effectiveness and contribute to the long-term success of her customers' businesses by providing services relating to talent acquisition, customized employee training programs, HR strategy development, and organizational consulting. According to the record, her talent acquisition services will include comprehensive recruitment services to identify, attract, and secure top talent for her clients; and her employee training and development services will involve the creation of customized 2 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 is discretionary in nature). p. 3 trammg programs designed to enhance employee skills, leadership capabilities, and professional growth, which she asserts are critical for industries facing professional shortages. In addition, she claimed that her company's HR strategy development services will include the development of effective HR strategies for workforce planning and performance management, and through its organizational consulting services she intends to provide advisory services aimed at improving organizational structure, culture, and processes to optimize efficiency.
Ultimately, the Petitioner asserted that, by enhancing both the operational efficiency and regulatory compliance of her customers' businesses, her company would significantly impact national economic stability and growth. And she claimed that by providing services to small and medium-sized companies within critical sectors like education, healthcare, and technology, her company would contribute to the country's growth and competitiveness on a global scale.
In support ofher endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a five-year business plan, an expert opinion letter, letters of recommendation, letters ofinterest from prospective customers, and various industry reports and articles discussing the management consulting, human resources, and financial manager industries. In addition, she submitted articles providing statistics on workplace learning and development, as well as articles discussing the impact of immigrant entrepreneurs. 3 Upon review, the Director concluded that, while the Petitioner established the substantial merit of her endeavor, she did not establish its national importance because the record did not demonstrate that her endeavor would lead to substantial economic benefits on a regional or national scale or significantly impact employment levels as claimed in the record.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Moreover, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established that her endeavor would lead to broader implications within her field or otherwise established the national importance of her endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague
On appeal, the Petitioner generally disagrees with the Director and contends that the decision lacked reasoned analysis of the evidence in the record-in particular her business plan-which she contends clearly establish the broader impact of her proposed endeavor. In particular, she asserts that her company will improve workforce efficiency and close the skills gap, which is essential to the broader U.S. economy. Moreover, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erroneously concluded that her endeavor would not result in substantial economic benefits, disregarding the projections provided in her business plan, which she states establishes the broad prospective economic impact ofher endeavor. In support of her appeal, the Petitioner also resubmits some of the evidence previously provided in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE).
Upon de novo review, we agree that the record does not establish, by a preponderance ofthe evidence, that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance. The Petitioner's claims on appeal primarily rely on the importance of the human resources and consulting industries, rather than the prospective impact directly attributable to her specific endeavor. But in Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of 3 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. p. 4 the proposed endeavor, noting 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's statements in the record reflect her intention to provide valuable services to her future customers, the record does not support her assertions that her services will result in broader implications to the field, beyond the potential benefits to her immediate customers. While she asserts, for example, that her plans to promote best practices in HR management, compliance, and leadership development will raise the industry standards, she has not explained how any best practices, even if adopted by her customers would be adopted by the industry more broadly or otherwise impact the field more broadly. Likewise, her claims that her company is positioned to "set new benchmarks in the HR consulting industry, both in the U[nited] S[tates] and globally" are not supported by the record. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See e.g., 1756,Inc. v. US.Att'yGen., 745F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C.1990)(holdingthat an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 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 too, we conclude that the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her potential customers to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.No interest from users, customers or investors
Similarly, while the Petitioner asserts on appeal that her company will address the skills gap which is not only vital to local businesses, but also essential to the broader United States, she does not support her assertions that her company will be able to ameliorate this issue at a level commensurate with national importance. Instead, her business plan establishes that her impact of her services will be limited to her prospective customers. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.
Moreover, the testimonial evidence in the record, including the expert opinion letter from Dr. S-M-, do not establish the national importance of her endeavor. The expert opinion letter primarily focuses on the importance of the human resources consulting industry, asserting that the industry "plays a crncial role in helping business address workforce management challenges, talent acquisition, employee development, and organizational strategy," and that "strategic HR consulting helps businesses remain competitive by fostering an adaptable and forward-thinking organizational strncture." Yet, the letter does not establish that the Petitioner's business would meaningfully impact the field or otherwise would result in broader implications beyond the immediate benefits to her customers. We acknowledge the expert's statement that her customers "may invest in advanced HR systems, training programs, and leadership development initiatives," which would subsequently benefit the economy through direct and indirect expenditures, the expert does not elaborate on the nature ofthis impact or establish it rises to the level ofnational importance contemplated in Dhanasar. Accordingly, the letter does not establish how the Petitioner's specific endeavor would broadly impact the field or otherwise lead to substantial economic effects as claimed. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm 'r. p. 5 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) ( discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value).
On appeal the Petitioner also asserts that her endeavor is aligned with national initiatives aimed at strengthening the workforce and will generate "multiplier effects in productivity, innovation, and social well-being"; however, she does not establish how any "multiplier effects," which are oftentimes significantly attenuated and unconnected with a particular endeavor, establish that her specific endeavor will result in broader implications commensurate with national importance. Moreover, the company's alignment these policies relates more to the substantial merit of her endeavor rather than its prospective impact.
The record also does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." See Dhanasar at 890. We acknowledge the Petitioner's plans to establish her company's operations in I I Connecticut, and subsequently expand to other key states, including New York and Florida to broaden her company's reach and impact. Yet, although any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact a local economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from her company and its operations would rise to the level of national importance contemplated in Dhanasar. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. In her business plan, the Petitioner indicated that by the fifth year of operations she anticipated generating annual revenue of $1,796,976 while employing 21 individuals, resulting in an annual payroll expense of $1,489,781. Notably, however, in the profits and loss statement in her company's business plan, the Petitioner states that her payroll expenses will total $1,331,728, without providing an explanation for this discrepancy.Inconsistencies in the record And while the Petitioner indicated that the 28 employees will consist of various positions including HR consultants, recrnitment specialists, project managers, and training and development analysts, the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these employment projections. Moreover, beyond providing an anticipated cost of her services, the business plan also does not explain the basis for the financial projections. But even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were sufficiently explained and supported, they do not establish that her company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance contemplated in Dhanasar, nor has the Petitioner explained how her proposed employment numbers and revenue would impact her company's areas of intended operations.
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor would be of national importance, and she therefore does not meet the requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, and therefore 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 under p. 6 Dhanasar's second and third prongs, as well as a determination as to her eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 US. 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.