The Petitioner, a human resources specialist, 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. § l 153(b)(2).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner qualified for classification as an advanced degree professional and her endeavor has substantial merit, she had not established that her proposed endeavor is of national importance, or that, on balance, a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the 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 ofthe 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 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 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
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with SCOPS' conclusion that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit as it falls within the range of areas of substantial merit, namely business and entrepreneurialism. Id. However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish its national importance.
The Petitioner states her proposed endeavor in the United States is to run a business,! I D that specializes in technology-driven human resources consulting for small and medium-sized enterprises (SME). The Petitioner farther states that the endeavor targets "critical challenges" facing businesses such as talent acquisition, retention, compliance, and workforce productivity. The Petitioner farther states that the proposed endeavor will address national priorities by delivering "tailored, tech-enabled HR solutions, leveraging platforms like Bamboo HR, Workable, and TalentLMS to modernize recruitment, onboarding, training, and compliance." The Petitioner emphasized that her proposed endeavor would result in improved human resources processes, predictable and sustainable results, enhanced productivity, and elevated human resources service and support leading to economic growth, employment opportunities, and contribution to the overall wellbeing of U.S. society. In addition, the Petitioner stated that her proposed endeavor would have the significant potential to employ U.S. workers and have substantial economic benefit through addressing critical issues such as skills gaps, employee retention, and internal mobility.
In determining national importance, 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As it relates to the Petitioner's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of her business rather than the importance of the human resources industry or entrepreneurism.2 Further, "we look for broader 2 The Petitioner's contentions and submissions of industry articles and reports relates to the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor rather than the national importance. p. 3 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. The broader implications of the proposed endeavor can inform us of the proposed endeavor's national importance. That is not to say that the implications are viewed solely through a geographical lens. Broader implications can reach beyond a particular proposed endeavor's geographical locus and focus. And 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. For entrepreneurial endeavors, in determining an endeavor's national importance, we also consider additional factors such as revenue growth, revenue generation, and job creation in our analysis. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(4), ("Specific Evidentiary Considerations for Entrepreneurs").
Moreover, 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. The Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions that the prospective impact of running a business that provides human resources services to small and medium sized businesses rises to the level ofnational importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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, the record does not show through supporting documentation how her specific services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance, rather than just claiming a "ripple effect." The Petitioner generally states that the proposed endeavor's "service model and best practices are deliberately designed for replication and scalability beyond Florida."Proposed endeavor too vague However, the Petitioner did not provide farther information regarding the models and scalability. The Petitioner also indicated her proposed focus on training and development; however, the specific nature of these services is unclear, and she did not sufficiently describe how her proposed training and development would have a national level impact on the human resources industry. The Petitioner provided very general notions ofnational impacts but did not provide specific information on how her business that services clients in a certain area can actually have a national impact. The Petitioner provided other generic asserted national impacts, indicating with little support that her proposed endeavor would address critical national issues such as skills gaps, employee retention, internal mobility, and training and development. For instance, the Petitioner states that she would provide innovative human resources techniques to SMEs but again she does not specifically indicate how these approaches differ from those already employed by SMEs across the country. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value. See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications).
Further, the record 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."Job creation or economic claims unsupported Id. at 890. Upon review of the business plan, the Petitioner projects that her business will have a total of 16 direct employees by its fifth year, including the Petitioner's role as chief executive officer. In the projected financial information, the Petitioner projects that her business will make annual tax contributions of $781,929 by the fifth year. We acknowledge that the Petitioner's business plan projects the creation of jobs, revenue, and taxes paid by its fifth year of operation, however the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor p. 4 does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. As such, without more, she has not established that her endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects at a level commensurate with national importance. Matter ofDhanasar at 890.
The business plan also utilizes the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS 11) for the positions of"Management Consulting Services" that projects that in the next five years the Petitioner's company will sustain an additional 59 .98 indirect and induced jobs. However, the Petitioner does not elaborate on the additional jobs a RIMS II calculation anticipates her company will create, such as the type of jobs those would be, the breakdown of part-time versus full-time positions, and where they would be created. Without more detailed, credible evidence ofthe types ofjobs that would be created and where the jobs would be located, the record does not establish that employing the positions listed in the business plan and creating unspecified jobs at unspecified locations, would show the type of substantial positive economic effects, and whether the effects would be particularly in an economically depressed area, contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong.Plan or projections not corroborated See id. at 889-90. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
In addition, the Petitioner provided little detail and documentation to sufficiently demonstrate that her human resources services would likely have a claimed national impact on economically depressed areas in Florida. For instance, the Petitioner did not specify what specific economically depressed areas her proposed services would impact, or the jobs or revenues that would be generated in these areas. Although any basic economic activity resulting from the Petitioner's work has the potential to positively impact a local economy, she has not provided sufficient explanation of the prospective national impact directly attributable to her proposed work, or established how her endeavor would impact an economically depressed area.
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision.
The Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the fust Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility under the second and third Dhanasar prongs, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. Accordingly, we reserve those issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 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).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude that she has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons.
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 p. 5 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 may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.