dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Investment Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 20, 2023 In Re: 28427961 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an investment consultant and attorney, 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 
qualifies for the underlying classification, the evidence did not establish the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor and that a waiver of the requirement of a 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&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 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, under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate 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 that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 
grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 2 
IL ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree in law from a Brazilian university in 2012. According to 
the Petitioner's resume, he currently works in Brazil as a lawyer and CEO ofl I 
specializing in tax, business, and real estate law. In addition, he works as an investment consultant 
and co-owner, with his father, o~ IFlorida. The Petitioner entered 
the United States in December 2021 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure and filed this petition 
in June 2022. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Therefore, the primary issue before us on 
appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus 
a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, "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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. For the reasons discussed 
below, the Director determined, and we agree, that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 3 
Within the Petitioner's initial submission, he provided a business plan indicating his intention to open 
his own company in Florida to offer consulting services to foreign clients interested in investing in the 
U.S. real estate market. The business plan asserts that these services will benefit the "U.S. real estate 
sector, which is a major contributor to the economic growth of America," by enabling foreign direct 
investment in the United States that will generate economic growth; and stimulating the U.S. economy 
through the creation of 11 new jobs within five years. 
Specifically, the business plan indicates that the company will employ a CEO (the Petitioner), a 
president (the Petitioner's father), an administrative assistant, four investment specialists, two lead 
agents, and two sales and marketing specialists. The included financial projections estimate that the 
company will have total payroll expenses of over $508,757, commissions and sales revenue of 
$1,000,000 and will generate $182,890 in tax revenue in its fifth year of operations. The business plan 
states that the company will be headquartered Florida and will target Florida. 
The Director issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) the petition, advising the Petitioner he would 
need to provide additional evidence addressing the national importance of the proposed endeavor. In 
response, he submitted an amended business plan and provided two advisory opinion letters, from 
Professor S-L-M- atl IUniversity School of Law and Professor V-L- atl I 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91 , for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted , we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
University. 4 The amended business plan emphasizes that the proposed endeavor "will result in both 
direct and indirect job creation, increasing taxes paid to the U.S. government through foreign 
investments in the U.S.," thereby "improving the U.S. economy." It provides that according to 
calculations published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the proposed endeavor will generate 
direct effects on employment equivalent to 24 jobs and on household earnings equivalent to $876,029 
by its fifth year. In addition, the amended business plan indicates that according to multipliers 
provided by the Economic Policy Institute, the proposed endeavor would generate 46 indirect jobs by 
Year 5. 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's amended business plan for his company and the letters 
submitted in response to the NOID but determined that he had not established the national importance 
of his specific proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not give 
sufficient weight to the information contained in his business plans and expert letters. The Petitioner 
maintains that his proposed endeavor "can impact numerous U.S. companies, institutions, and 
individuals" because it targets foreign companies and individuals in need of investment consulting 
services.5 
Regarding the advisory opinion letters, in addressing the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, both 
professors state that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor "impacts a matter that a government entity has 
described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives." Specifically, they 
assert that according to information dated 2020 and posted on The White House.gov, "discussions 
have deepened for a bilateral trade package, with a view towards intensifying the economic 
partnership" between the United States and Brazil. However, the fact that a petitioner is qualified for 
and may accept a position in an industry or sector that is the subject of national initiatives is not 
sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of a specific endeavor. The Petitioner 
must still demonstrate the potential prospective impact of his specific endeavor in that area of national 
importance, and he has not met that burden. 
Further, both authors note the job creation and tax revenue figures contained in the Petitioner's 
business plans, and assert that the proposed endeavor "will positively contribute to the nation's 
economy through job creation and taxes generated" and "has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers." They conclude that the Petitioner's work "has both substantial merit and national 
importance" for the United States. Although the authors briefly address the Petitioner's business 
4 The Petitioner's initial documentation, response to the NOID, and appeal submission also include letters from clients of 
his law firm in Brazil and his consulting company inl IFlorida, praising his legal work in the areas of tax, real estate 
and business and his consulting services related to the purchase and sale of prope1ties. But the authors of the letters do not 
address the national importance of his proposed endeavor. In addition, the Petitioner's experience and abilities in his field 
relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." Id. at 890. 
5 The Petitioner also offers new 'f"'-""""""'"""'-.>L.!.!....w.<JLL>(al, including an impact analysis for his proposed business, an expert 
report from a finance professor at University, additional recommendation letters, and a boundary survey 
for a housing project in~---~ Florida, an area the Petitioner claims is economically depressed. However, we will 
not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal as it was not presented before the Director. See Matter ofSoriano, 
19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (providing that if"the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given 
a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial, we will not consider evidence submitted on appeal 
for any purpose" and that "we will adjudicate the appeal based on the record of proceedings" before the Chief); see also 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
3 
plans, they do not sufficiently address their prospective substantial economic impact nor do they 
discuss the implications of the proposed endeavor on the larger field of real estate or financial 
investment consulting. For example, the professors have not offered sufficient evidence that the 
Petitioner's investment consulting services through his company would employ a significant 
population of workers in an economically depressed area, or that his endeavor would offer a particular 
U.S. region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business 
activity. 
We observe that 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, USeIS 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 of 
D-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). Here, much of the content 
of the expert opinion letters is lacking in relevance and probative value with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 6 
In addition, the Director considered the Petitioner's business plans and determined that they did not 
demonstrate that the company's future staffing levels and consulting activity would provide substantial 
economic benefits in Florida or the United States. The record supports the Director's conclusion. 
Although the business plans reflect that the company will hire several workers, the record does not 
contain sufficient evidence to reflect that the area where it will operate is economically depressed, that 
it would employ a significant population of workers in the area, or that the specific proposed endeavor 
would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, 
business activity, trade, or related tax revenue. In this regard, we note that the Petitioner's business 
plans contain a chart and figures from IBISWorld.com indicating that Florida has 12.2% of total U.S. 
real estate sales and brokerage industry establishments. The record does not support that the creation 
of eleven additional jobs in this sector or the expected tax 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. 
The business plans indicate that the Petitioner's company would offer additional economic benefits 
including enabling foreign direct investment in new or existing U.S. businesses. However, these 
statements are not supported by financial projections. Although the proposed endeavor may benefit 
6 We further note that the letter from Professor S-L-M- at !University School of Law does not provide her 
~educational background and qualifications, but repeats those contained in the letter from Professor V-L- atl I 
L_J University. For example, her letter indicates she received a bachelor~in engineering from._l_____ __._ 
Technical University, a master's de ree in technology management fromL___JUniversity of Technology, and a Ph.D. 
in business administration from Universit , and states "[c]urrently, I am a tenured Associate Professor 
of Business Administration - Marketing at~----~University." Here, these concerns give rise to significant 
questions regarding the authorship of this letter and whether it reflects the professional opinion of Professor S-L-M-. In 
evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Chawathe, 
25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
I 
4 
the clients that engage the Petitioner's company, the record does not sufficiently show that such 
benefits, either individually or cumulatively, would rise to the level of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates the importance of the industry or profession, and his role within 
the proposed company; however, these factors do not sufficiently establish the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner likewise reiterates his professional experience and abilities. 
While important, as noted the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his employment relates 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 the Petitioner proposes 
to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to establish that he 
meets the first prong of the Dhanasar national interest framework. Although the Director also 
concluded that the Petitioner had not established his eligibility under the second and third prongs of 
the Dhanasar framework, detailed discussion of the remaining prongs cannot change the outcome of 
this appeal. Therefore, we reserve those issues and will dismiss the appeal as a matter of discretion. 7 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessmy 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). 
5