dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Corporate Governance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 24, 2024 In Re: 34775177 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. § 1l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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) 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 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
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. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner intends to work in the United States as a legal practitioner in the 
field of corporate governance with a particular focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG)2 
matters. Initially, the Petitioner claimed that their "endeavor is focused on advocating the significance 
of companies' governance actions concerning ESG issues in the United States, advocating for the 
efficient use of America's resources, and crafting innovative frameworks for promoting welfare of 
American citizens." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), requesting additional 
information relating to the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner clarified that they intended to work for a 
U.S.-based, global law firm to "apply [their] corporate legal expertise in ESG to develop innovative 
legal frameworks and guide corporations towards sustainable and responsible practices," with the goal 
of"enhance[ing] U.S. competitiveness, attract[ing] ethical investors, contribut[ing] to carbon footprint 
reduction, and promot[ing] long-term economic growth and social stability." The Petitioner asserted 
that their endeavor would contribute to climate change mitigation, economic growth and stability, 
social stability and ethical investing, and national security. 
In support of their endeavor, the record contains multiple letters ofrecommendation, an expert opinion 
letter, several industry articles, reports, and government publications relating to ESG matters, climate­
related financial reports, as well as governmental and consumer interest in promoting ESG initiatives. 
Additionally, the Petitioner provided articles relating to their employer's work in advising on ESG 
matters and information relating to their employment with the firm. 3 
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). 
2 The Petitioner defined ESG as a "framework that goes beyond financial considerations, helping stakeholders assess how 
companies manage risks and opportunities related to societal and environmental changes [with a] primary objective[] to 
create long-te1m value by prioritizing risk management and capitalizing on opportunities." 
3 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
Upon review of the record, the Director concluded that, while the Petitioner established the substantial 
merit of their endeavor, the record did not demonstrate the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. Specifically, the Director concluded that the proposed endeavor was too vague to 
demonstrate its national importance, and did not establish the Petitioner's work as a corporate legal 
practitioner would result in broader implications to their field, beyond the benefits to their employer 
and prospective clients. While the Director acknowledged that the legal field and ESG initiatives are 
collectively important to the United States and its economy, the Director concluded that the Petitioner 
had not established how their specific endeavor would rise to the level of national importance 
contemplated in Dhanasar. Additionally, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not shown 
that their proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer 
substantial positive economic effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally disagrees with the Director's conclusions, asserting that their "legal 
framework directly addresses critical gaps in ESG compliance and reporting," and contends that the 
evidence in the record establishes their eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. The 
Petitioner also claims that the Director's determination that their endeavor is too vague is erroneous 
as the record establishes their specific endeavor will encompass three primary actions: applying their 
expertise in ESG to develop innovative legal frameworks; guiding corporations towards sustainable 
and responsible practices; and enhancing US competitiveness. Accordingly, the Petitioner claims that 
by addressing the critical gaps in ESG the endeavor contributes to national interests, ensuring the U.S. 
remains a leader in ethical business practices. The Petitioner also claims that the evidence in the 
record, primarily the research reports on ESG compliance and the critical role of corporate lawyers in 
addressing ESG compliance issues established the specific nature of their endeavor, as well as its 
broader implications. 
Upon de novo review, we agree that, while the record establishes the substantial merit of the 
Petitioner's endeavor, the Petitioner has not established the proposed endeavor has national 
importance. The Petitioner's claims on appeal primarily rely on the importance of ESG and the 
corporate legal field in general, rather than the prospective impact of their specific endeavor. But in 
Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for 
broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting 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. 
Although the Petitioner's statements in the record reflect their intention to provide valuable legal 
services to their prospective clients, which they assert will be comprised of several Fortune 500 
companies, the record does not establish that their work will result in broader implications to the field, 
beyond the potential benefits to their employer and clients. On appeal, the Petitioner points to the 
articles, industry reports, and government publications relating to ESG compliance, as well as 
evidence that their employer serves top financial and insurance companies to support their assertions. 
But these articles do not discuss the Petitioner's specific work, or otherwise establish how their work 
3 
will result in broader implications to the industry. Instead, this evidence supports the endeavor's 
substantial merit. 
And, while the Petitioner claimed that, by helping their prospective clients navigate complex 
regulatory frameworks and prioritize ESG matters, their work will broadly impact national initiatives, 
including climate change mitigation, economic growth and stability, social stability and ethical 
investing, and national security, and public health, they do not explain or support with evidence how 
their specific work will meaningfully impact these initiatives. Their endeavor's alignment with federal 
initiatives may speak to the substantial merit of the endeavor, but it does not establish the specific 
endeavor's potential prospective impact. Instead, the record reflects that the prospective impact of the 
Petitioner's work will be limited to their employer and prospective clients. The Petitioner has not 
shown, for example, that any innovative legal frameworks they develop for their prospective clients 
would otherwise lead to broader implications to the field. And, because they have not described the 
innovative legal frameworks they intend to develop, we are unable to determine whether their work 
would result in improvements to the field analogous to the "improved manufacturing processes or 
medical advances" contemplated in Dhanasar. Dhanasar at 889. Generalized conclusory statements 
that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. 
Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.e. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's 
teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not 
impact his field more broadly. Dhanasar at 893. Here too, we agree with the Director that the record 
does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond their 
employer or clients to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Similarly, while we have reviewed the expert opinion letter in the record, we conclude it provides little 
probative value in establishing the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. For 
example, the letter from Ms. B-O-, which provides an opinion "on the significance of [ e ]nvironmental, 
[s]ocial, and [g]ovemance (ESG) [p]ractices in the United States," does not establish the broader 
impact of the Petitioner's specific work, but rather focuses primarily on the importance of ESG 
practices and legal practitioners in general. For example, the writer states that the Petitioner's 
endeavor "aligns with broader national interests, including fostering economic growth, enhancing 
global competitiveness, and safeguarding public health and safety," but they do not identify ways in 
which the Petitioner's work will impact these initiatives at a level commensurate with national 
importance. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, 
professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of 
Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r. 1988). However, users is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a noncitizen'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 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert 
testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). 
The multiple letters of recommendation also do not establish that the prospective impact of the 
Petitioner's work will lead to broader implications to their field commensurate with national 
importance. While we recognize that the Petitioner has had a successful career, has participated in 
research on ESG matters while pursuing their education in the U.S., and has provided critical advice 
to former clients, a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's 
4 
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 the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. We conclude that they have not. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also asserts that the evidence submitted in response to the Director's RFE 
established that corporate practitioners, like the Petitioner, are in high demand to guide corporations 
in compliance with environmental sustainability standards, but this does not establish the national 
importance of their specific endeavor. The national interest waiver is not intended to address labor 
shortages. A demand for qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual legal 
practitioner nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision. Several of the Petitioner's 
claims of national importance could reasonably apply to any corporate legal practitioner in the field 
who has a positive impact on their client's operations, but Congress did not provide a blanket 
exemption for this occupation with respect to the job offer and labor certification requirement 
We also agree with the Director's conclusion that 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." See Dhanasar at 890. Although the record 
discusses the collective economic impact of ESG compliance and sustainable practices, the Petitioner 
has not shown how their work would result in substantial economic benefits discussed in Dhanasar. 
Although any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact a local economy, the 
Petitioner has not shown that their endeavor will result in positive economic impacts at a level 
commensurate with national importance. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
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. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under Dhanasar's second and 
third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 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 ofL-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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5