dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 06, 2024 In Re: 30970741 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a general operations manager, seeks second preference immigrant classification (EB-2) 
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 immigrant 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 Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that 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 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof 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. 
I. 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. 
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 (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: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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 requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced 
______ 
degree. The Petitioner obtained a bachelor's degree in law from the 
in Brazil and has been a member of the Brazilian Bar Association since 2009. She 
has worked as 
_____________________ 
a lawyer in Brazil since 2010, specializing in social security law and managing her own 
law firm, 
The Petitioner's endeavor is to work as the "General and Operations Manager" of her business, 
____________________ that will "offer consultancy and assistance in 
the general personal regularization of immigrants and the development of Latino immigrant businesses 
in the state of Florida." The Director concluded that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, but 
not national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The Director further 
determined that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor, but without 
analyzing the evidence under the second prong. Finally, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did 
not meet Dhanasar's third prong, as she did not show, on balance, any national interest factors that 
would outweigh the benefits inherent in the labor certification process. 
A. National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
We adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. See Matter of 
Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 
1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally 
accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F3d 5, 8 (1st 
Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Courts of Appeals in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and 
affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
In denying the petition, the Director pointed out that the Petitioner's specific endeavor, rather than the 
field or profession, is the focus when addressing the issue of national importance in the context of a 
national interest waiver. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director acknowledged that the 
Petitioner's endeavor in the field of entrepreneurship has substantial merit; however, the Director 
determined that the endeavor of operating a consultancy business focused on Latino communities to 
assist with their immigration status and advise on immigrant business ventures would not result in 
broad economic implications, such as having significant potential to employ U.S. workers, particularly 
in an economically depressed area. Id. at 890. The Director highlighted the lack of objective evidence 
to support the staffing projections and figures proposed in the Petitioner's business plan as well as the 
limited impact of her endeavor. The Director also evaluated the expert opinion letter but found that it 
only clarified and explained the endeavor instead of demonstrating its national importance with 
2 
corroborating details. In sum, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that her 
proposed endeavor would more broadly impact the region or nation such that it would rise to the level 
of having national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not provide any new evidence or arguments to overcome deficiencies 
noted by the Director or identify any errors on the part of the Director. Instead, the Petitioner refers 
to the previously submitted evidence, such as her business plan, and broadly claims that she "can 
contribute significantly to economic growth, job creation, innovation, and the overall efficiency of 
businesses, labor market, and legal compliance, making them vital components of the country's 
economic landscape." However, the Petitioner still has not provided corroborating evidence that her 
company's staffing level and business activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits 
regionally or to the United States, or that her endeavor has national or even global implications in the 
field. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Therefore, we conclude the Petitioner has not established that her proposed work is of national 
importance as contemplated by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
In the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, we shift our focus from the proposed endeavor to 
the petitioner. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, the Director determined that the Petitioner is 
well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor without providing analysis of the evidence under 
Dhanasar's second prong. Upon de novo review, we disagree with the Director. While the Petitioner 
has credentials and experience as a lawyer in Brazil specializing in social security law and managing 
her own law firm, we conclude that the record does not demonstrate that she is well-positioned to 
advance her endeavor as an entrepreneur owning and operating a business focused on regularizing 
immigration status and assisting business ventures of Latino immigrants in the United States. 
The Dhanasar decision spelled out several factors which can be considered in determining whether a 
petitioner is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor, including several which are pertinent 
to entrepreneurial endeavors. Id. These include a record of success in similar efforts, any progress 
towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or 
other relevant entities or individuals. In this case, the record lacks evidence which supports any of 
these factors. 
The Petitioner submitted her resume and recommendation letters from her former clients and a federal 
judge. The former clients praise the Petitioner's knowledge and skills in representing them in social 
security and retirement cases and the federal judge attests to the Petitioner's professionalism and work 
as a lawyer. The record also shows that the Petitioner published articles about social security and 
pension law and was cited by the Brazilian media for her knowledge of such legal matters. However, 
there is no evidence that the Petitioner has previously attempted or succeeded in launching new 
business ventures for companies or individuals other than her own law firm. 
In addition, the record lacks documentation of any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, 
which might include the establishment of the business as a legal entity, registration of the business, 
3 
securing any necessary fonding, renting or purchasing physical space for the business, and the hiring 
of employees and contractors. Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner has made any 
preparations for starting her new business beyond writing a business plan. The Petitioner's business 
plan itself provides various financial forecasts and staffing projections but lacks independent and 
corroborating evidence to support these projections. 
Further, there is no indication in the record that the Petitioner has successfully gathered interest from 
potential investors or customers. The Petitioner included letters from three different companies in 
Florida who similarly express interest in "her business proposal" and state that "she has much to 
contribute to the American economy." However, the company representatives do not discuss specifics 
of the business proposal and the Petitioner has not shown other corroborating evidence that these 
interests will result in sales, contracts, or clients, to demonstrate some record of success. 
While "we do not ... require petitioners to demonstrate that their endeavors are more likely than not to 
ultimately succeed," Dhanasar at 890, here the record includes more information about her 
achievements as a lawyer than about the prospects of her proposed business. Accordingly, we disagree 
with the Director and conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she meets the second prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Whether on Balance It Would be in the National Interest to Grant a Waiver 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. However, as 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets the first and second prongs of the Dhanasar 
framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion and further 
discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "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 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first and second prongs of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we conclude that she has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4