The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of human resources, 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 although the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, she had not established that 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. 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 l&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. "Advanced degree" means any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by five years ofprogressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
"Exceptional ability" in the sciences, arts, or business 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. See 8 p. 2 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. We will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. 2 Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 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 discretion3
, 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.
Analysis
A. EB-2 Visa Classification
As indicated above, the 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. The Director determined that the Petitioner is a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree. However, upon de novo review, we disagree.
The Petitioner provided a copy of her diploma for the title of public accountant and transcripts from the Universidad~--------~indicating that she began her studies in 2000 and completed them in 2002, a period of two years. 4 However, a bachelor's degree is generally found to require four years of education. Matter ofShah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Comm'r 1977). There is no provision in the statute or the regulations that would allow a petitioner to qualify under section 203(b )(2) of the Act as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with anything less than a full baccalaureate degree (plus five years of progressive experience in the specialty).Five years of progressive experience not documented
Moreover, we observe that although the information printed on the transcript letterhead is legible and crisp, the letterhead itself appears fuzzy and is often not legible and the information on the fourth page ofthe transcript covers a portion ofthe letterhead. These issues raise questions and concerns regarding the authenticity of the transcripts. Doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. The Petitioner must resolve the inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.Inconsistencies in the record Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988).
For the reasons we have discussed above, the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that she is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and we withdraw the Director's finding on this issue.
In addition, we note the Petitioner initially claimed she qualifies for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. However, the Director did not make a finding as to whether the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability. Since the evidence in the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion, we will reserve the issue of whether she qualifies for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability for future consideration should the need arise. 5
B. National Interest Waiver
The Petitioner proposes to establish a human resources consulting services business in Texas. In addition, the Petitioner states that her "clients will include construction workers and companies, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and foreign entrepreneurs looking to establish a business in the U.S. as well as individuals and soon-to-be retirees."
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 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. For example, endeavors related to research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge may qualify. Id. In her decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit, and we agree. Turning to the national importance of her endeavor, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor would have a broader impact on the human resources management field.No broader implications shown
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director failed to consider all of her proposed endeavor's broader implications as shown in her business plan, industry reports, articles, and government initiatives. We have reviewed the staffing and revenue projections in the submitted business plan, which project that the company will directly employ 20 foll-time employees within five years and, 5 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). p. 4 during that period, cumulatively pay wages of over $900,000 and generate over $1 million in revenue. The business plan uses a multiplier published by the Economy Policy Institute to show that it will generate 83 indirect jobs by the company's fifth year of operation. Importantly however, these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be realized, nor do they demonstrate a significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national economy. Specifically, the record does not support that the direct creation of 20 additional full-time jobs and 83 indirect jobs in this sector or the expected revenue generated by the company will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
In addition, the business plan highlights the Petitioner's over 10 years of experience in human resources and financial management to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. However, the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance of her proposed work.
Moreover, through industry reports and articles, the Petitioner emphasized the importance of the human resources management industry. We agree that the field of human resources is important, and that success in the field may lead to greater career opportunities and economic advantages. However, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We further noted that "we look for broader 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. While the Petitioner proposes to work in an important industry or field, this is not necessarily sufficient to establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Regardless, the articles and reports do not discuss any particulars ofthe Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its prospective impact rising to the level of national 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. Likewise, the Petitioner has not established how providing her human resources consulting services stands to sufficiently extend beyond her clients to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
We also reviewed the expert opinion letter from a university associate professor in the marketing field. The author discusses the Petitioner's skills and abilities as a human resources consultant and speculates on how her services can potentially improve business practices and improve productivity ofcompanies but does not offer any persuasive detail concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how her endeavor's impact would extend beyond the companies that she will serve. Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter o_fCaron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a foreign national'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 p. 5 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value).
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we need not address her eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. 6 The burden of proof is on the Petitioner to establish that she meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The Petitioner has not done so here and, therefore, we conclude that she has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.