The Petitioner, an automotive engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member ofthe 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).
SCOPS denied the petition. SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. However, SCOPS concluded that the record does not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a 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 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 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 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 the proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
SCOPS found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. However, for the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id.
The Petitioner initially described the proposed endeavor as a plan "to leverage my extensive expertise in [ q]uality [ e ]ngineering, which I've acquired over the past two decades, to make a strategic impact in the American automotive sector, focusing on medium to large-sized manufacturers." He generally stated that he would "introduce improved methodologies for project development and mass production operations." He also stated that he would "establish mentoring programs within American manufacturing plants, guiding emerging talent to anticipate challenges, streamline processes, and expedite project launches."
In response to SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted additional descriptions of the proposed endeavor, and a business plan. In the business plan, the Petitioner described the proposed endeavor as a "plan to open my own firm after working as an independent advisor and acquiring a solid customer database and a robust project portfolio as an independent advisor." The Petitioner reiterated that his startup automotive engineering consulting services company would "develop and implement novel and strategic quality engineering solutions to address the challenges within project development and mass production operations in the U.S. automotive sector, especially those related to rapid technological advancements and the shift toward enhanced manufacturing." He stated that he would "provide innovative and tailored solutions that improve project development, production timelines, and overall manufacturing processes for medium to large-sized American automakers." He further stated that his "creative solutions will drive American automotive companies to reduce operational inefficiencies, improve profitability, and meet evolving safety and regulatory standards," thereby "enabl[ing] these companies to create more jobs, expand their business, reduce wastage, and increase their profits."
The business plan states that the Petitioner's startup automotive engineering consulting services company would initially operate out ofI IIndiana, because of its "thriving manufacturing sector, especially in industries like automotive, electronics, and medical devices." The plan also indicates that the company would "expand ... to have branch offices in I IIndiana[,] and ITennessee," in the third and fifth years of operations, respectively. The plan asserts that the Petitioner would work as the company's chief executive officer, with seven additional workers per office, including two engineering consultants and one ofeach ofthe following position titles: customer analyst, accountant; lawyer; administrative assistant; and "AI/lot/IT/Cloud/Web Specialist." The record also contains copies of publications that provide generalized information regarding the automotive industry, opinion letters, letters of recommendation, and letters of interest from potential clients.Support letters generic or unsupported
I
SCOPS acknowledged the Petitioner's description of the proposed endeavor and information in the record, and SCOPS concluded "that the [P]etitioner's proposed endeavor does have substantial merit," as required in part by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. However, SCOPS observed that the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor would have national importance, as also required in part by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. SCOPS farther concluded that the record does not satisfy the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See id.
Because we determine that the record does not establish whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance, which is dispositive, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required in part by the first Dhanasar prong, and whether the record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 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); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the proposed endeavor has national importance based on ultimately "All Evidence from Initial Petition and RFE Response," discussing in particular his business plan, the copies of publications providing generalized information regarding the automotive industry, and opinion letters. The Petitioner also specifically asserts on appeal, "By educating a new generation of U.S.-based quality engineers, the [P]etitioner directly contributes to workforce upskilling in critical STEM areas aligned with national economic competitiveness" and, thus, the proposed endeavor has national importance.
In determining national importance under the first Dhanasar prong, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the [individual] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90.
We first note that the copies of publications in the record providing generalized information regarding the automotive industry do not reference the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how the specific endeavor may have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong.Proposed endeavor too vague See id. Because the publications do not reference the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how the specific endeavor may have national importance, they do not provide probative information regarding whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance, and we need not address them farther.
The business plan contains contradictory and unsubstantiated information that undermines both its reliability and sufficiency, and the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence.Claims not backed by documents See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (providing that doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's p. 4 proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition).
In particular, we note that the business plan's financial information is contradictory and unsubstantiated. The plan assumes that the startup company would perform "4-8 medium-sized projects annually" to generate "$120,000-$300,000" in annual revenue. However, the business plan also indicates: "Typical project fees: $10,000-$50,000 per project." At one end of the spectrum, four projects at a rate of $10,000 would generate $40,000 in annual revenue, not $120,000; at the other end of the spectrum, eight projects at a rate of $50,000 would generate $400,000 in annual revenue, not $300,000. Even if the business plan's financial calculations were internally consistent, neither the plan nor the remainder of the record establishes why the company anticipates completing "4-8 medium-sized projects annually," as opposed to any other number ofprojects. Then, when calculating the company's anticipated financial growth during the fifth through tenth years, the business plan estimates annual revenue of"$350,000-$500,000," without supporting that estimation with any change to the number of annual projects or expected project fees noted above. The plan similarly provides arbitrary and unsubstantiated year-over-year revenue growth estimations.
As another example of contradictory and unsubstantiated financial information, the business plan calculates flat total "employee wages" of $165,000 in Year 3 and Year 4, and flat total wages of $245,000 thereafter, without calculating total wages for the first two years of operations. However, the business plan provides the following annual salary figures for the "hiring projections per branch," other than the Petitioner's "profit dependent" salary: $100,000; $80,000; $45,000; $11,000; $20,000; $35,000; and $30,000. Those annual salaries total $321,000 "per branch." Thus, the annual wages for the first two years of operations should be $321,000, increasing to $642,000 in Year 3 and Year 4, further increasing to $963,000 thereafter. Even more problematically, none of the business plan's anticipated annual revenue is sufficient to pay the calculated employee wages of $321,000, $642,000, and $963,000 in the respective years, in addition to all other calculated expenses. We further note that, even if the business plan provided internally consistent information regarding the wages the Petitioner's company would pay its workers-and the company's financial ability to do so-the business plan indicates that apparently none of the workers would receive a raise within 10 years of employment.
As a further example of unsubstantiated financial information, the business plan provides unrealistic rent calculations. The plan states that in Year 1 and Year 2 the company's annual "rent" expenses would be $3,000 each, increasing to $10,000 in Year 3 and Year 4, further increasing to $25,000 in Year 5 and Year 8, finally increasing to $35,000 in Year 10. The record does not support the conclusion that the Petitioner's startup automotive engineering consulting services company, with eight workers including the Petitioner, would reasonably pay only $3,000 annually-or only $250 monthly-for renting office space in! !Indiana. Moreover, neither the plan nor the remainder of the record establishes why th comnanls annual office space rental costs would more than triple upon opening a second branch in.______. Indiana, in the third year of operations, nor does it explain how the company's annual office space rental costs would be only $10,000 for those two locations. In tum, neither the plan nor the remainder of the record does not establish why the company's annual office space rental costs would more than double again in the fifth year of operations, despite opening only one more location, nor does it explain how the annual rental costs would be only $25,000 for those three locations. Neither the business nor the remainder of the record explains why the annual p. 5 rental costs would increase again by $10,000 in Year 10, despite the company not opening any additional locations after the fifth year of operations.
The extent of the contradictory and unsubstantiated information in the business plan casts doubt on the veracity of the business plan, specifically its financial information, undermining the reliability and sufficiency of the business plan and the totality of the record more generally. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 (providing that 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). Because the reliability and sufficiency of the business plan is undermined, the reliability and sufficiency of its other financial information, including revenue estimations and anticipated expense calculations, such as the number of workers the consulting company may need-and afford-to employ, are similarly undermined. The veracity of the financial information in the record is material to the first Dhanasar prong because it addresses the extent to which the proposed endeavor may have the potential to employ U.S. workers and have other positive economic effects, and indeed what those economic effects may be, which are factors in determining whether an endeavor may have national importance. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90.
Even to the extent that the evidence in the record may be reliable and sufficient, it does not establish whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance. For example, neither the business plan, nor the opinion letters, nor the remainder ofthe record establish that the startup automotive engineering consulting services company may have national or even global implications within the field of automotive engineering or any other particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. See id. Rather, the proposed endeavor to provide automotive engineering consulting services "tailored [to] medium to large-sized American automakers" appears to be similar to other automotive engineering consulting services specifically for the benefit of their particular clients and customers, and the record does not establish that the benefits of the Petitioner's automotive engineering consulting services company would extend beyond his company's clients, customers, and business partners, consistent with national importance, as contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. In tum, although the business plan indicates that, in addition to employing the Petitioner, his company would employ seven other workers in I IIndiana, I I Indiana, and I !Tennessee, respectively, the record does not establish the significance of employing seven workers with the position titles noted above in any or all of those locations, in order to determine whether doing so would demonstrate significant potential to employ U.S. workers.Job creation or economic claims unsupported See id.
Next, we acknowledge that the record contains an opinion letter written by.__ ____________. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory. Matter o_f Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we may give an opinion less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id.; see also Fed. R. Evid. 702 (providing that an expert opinion may "help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue," not that it is evidence of fact itself). The opinion letter is based on the author having "reviewed [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor." However, as noted above, the business plan describing the proposed endeavor bears minimal reliability p. 6 and sufficiency. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Therefore, the opinion based on that unreliable and insufficient business plan's description of the proposed endeavor is questionable and, thus, also bears minimal probative value. See Matter ofCaron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. Moreover, even if the opinion letter bore probative value, which it does not, it merely repeats information provided elsewhere in the record without adding any informative value that helps us understand the evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 702.
We also acknowledge that the record contains letters of recommendation and letters of interest. Similar to the opinion letter, the letters of recommendation summarize information already in the record, including the Petitioner's qualifications and his description of the proposed endeavor. They provide supportive statements such as, "by granting his application, the United States will gain a valuable professional who will undoubtedly provide a substantial positive impact in the field of [a]utomotive [q]uality [m]anagement." However, they do not elaborate on how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications within the field of automotive engineering or any other field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes, significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects, or other broader implications indicative of national importance. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Therefore, the letters of recommendation do not inform how the proposed endeavor may have national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. We farther acknowledge that the record contains letters that "express [the respective author's] interest in hiring [the Petitioner] as an independent consultant for our company in the area of project quality upon the approval of [his] EB-2 National Interest Waiver visa application." These letters of interest are relevant to determining whether the Petitioner may be well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor based, in part, on the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals, as contemplated by the second Dhanasar prong. See id. However, similar to the other evidence, discussed above, the letters of interest do not establish how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications within the field of automotive engineering or any other field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes, significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects, or other broader implications indicative of national importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id.
In determining whether an endeavor implicating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields may have national importance, as in all cases, the record must establish that the specific proposed endeavor-rather than the industry, field, or profession in which a petitioner may work in general-has national importance, as provided in Dhanasar, such as by broadly impacting the relevant STEM field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l)-(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. As noted above, neither the Petitioner's personal statements, nor the business plan, nor the remainder ofthe record provides probative, objective information regarding how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications within the field of automotive engineering or any other particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances, or substantial positive economic effects. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Rather, the proposed endeavor to provide automotive engineering consulting services appears to be similar to other automotive engineering consulting services companies, and the record does not establish that the benefits of the Petitioner's automotive p. 7 engineering consulting services company would extend beyond his company's clients, customers, and business partners, consistent with national importance, as contemplated by Dhanasar. See id.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect ofthe 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 of the Act through the issuance of a Form 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.