dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Conflict Resolution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 19, 2023 In Re: 28545583 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a conflict resolution specialist, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as 
well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. 
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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for 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 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 Christa's , Inc., 26 I&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, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 1, grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• 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. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As it relates to the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. At initial filing, the 
Petitioner's cover letter stated: 
. . . [The Petitioner] endeavors to provide premium-quality mediation and conciliation 
services as well as court representation services to Brazilian immigrants and U.S. 
businesses that are operating in Brazil. 
[The Petitioner] will leverage her extensive knowledge and in-depth understanding of 
comparative legal frameworks and bring high levels of satisfaction and operational 
efficiency to clients. In addition to delivering high-quality services and tangible results 
for clients, she will provide educational opportunities for her employees. Moreover, 
over the next five years, [the Petitioner's] U.S. established company registered in the 
State of Florida ("Company") will achieve growth that will result in both direct and 
indirect job creation and increased taxes paid to the U.S. government .... 
In addition, the Petitioner's personal statement indicated: 
When my permanent resident visa is approved, I intend to work in the areas that I work 
today in Brazil, such as conciliation and mediation between people and companies and, 
also, as a team manager in face-to-face and distance modality with a focus on high 
performance. 
I would like to open a mediation, conciliation and private arbitration company that 
would work to resolve the cases without having to be brought to the judiciary. With 
regard to team management, I would like to provide advice and provide training to 
companies/agencies to assist them in this issue that I believe is of fundamental 
importance for the proper functioning of any company/institution. Also, focusing on 
the management of teams at a distance. 
In response to the Director's notice of intent to deny, the Petitioner claimed: 
[The Petitioner] will offer legal services at reasonable costs to low-income people and 
small and medium-sized businesses that would not otherwise have access to the justice 
system because they lack the financial means. A lawyer such as [the Petitioner], who is 
knowledgeable in both U.S. and Brazilian business rules and regulations and how they 
relate to the client's operations, is essential given the rise in U.S. corporations doing 
business in Brazil. To preserve its assets, achieve its business objectives, and ensure a 
better future for its businesses, the Company will assist its corporate clients with many 
diverse concerns connected to business law. Additionally, the Petitioner will help clients 
resolve conflicts and legal disputes outside of Court, saving them significant time, energy, 
and money. She is a highly skilled mediator and conciliation professional, demonstrating 
that her proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
2 
The Director determined the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor's substantial merit but not 
its national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor of providing mediation and conciliation services through the operation of her business. 
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. Here, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of providing her 
particular mediation and conciliation services through her business rather than the overall importance 
of mediation, conciliation, conflict resolution, professional mediators, law firms, market research 
analysts, training and development specialists, sales managers, alternative dispute resolution for the 
poor, parent-child mediation, U.S. relations with Brazil, and other related fields, industries, and 
topics. 2 In Dhanasar, we 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. 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. 
The Petitioner also references her submission of a recommendation letter from a judge "highlight[ing] 
her valuable professional skills set," "numerous awards and compliments," and "attend[ance] [at] 
several courses." However, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, abilities, and prior accomplishments 
relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor she 
proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s first prong. 
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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her proposed endeavor 
of owning and operating a mediation and conciliation business largely influences the field and rises 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. While the Petitioner indicates her submission of business intent letters from 
companies, the Petitioner did not show how her services or business stand to sufficiently extend 
beyond these prospective clients, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, although the Petitioner provided a business plan for her company, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how her business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible 
or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. While the total sales forecast $485K in year 1 to $2.02M in year 5 
over locations in four states, the business plan does not establish the benefits to the regional or national 
2 The Petitioner's evidence relate more to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the national 
importance part. 
3 
economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Id. at 890. Similarly, although the plan claims the business would create 7 positions in year 1, one of 
which is allocated to the Petitioner, to 26 positions in year 5 over four states, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to Florida, 
Massachusetts, Texas, or California or the region or U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not show that such 
employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers in the area or would substantially 
impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. For all these reasons, the 
record does not establish that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and 
employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having 
national importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of her qualification under the second and third 
prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 The Director's decision does not make a finding on the Petitioner's claimed eligibility for the underlying immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. 
Furthermore, although the Director indicated the Petitioner did not quality for Dhanasar's third prong framework, the 
decision does not contain an analysis or explanation for her conclusion. Because the Petitioner did not meet the first prong 
requirements, we need not remand the matter to the Director in order to make a determination on the underlying immigrant 
classification and third prong analysis. 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 ofL­
A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not 
otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4