dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 10, 2023 In Re: 28015518 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a lawyer, seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, 
arts or business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver. 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 nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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 EB-2 eligibility, 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, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver petitions . Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director made no determination as to whether the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of 
exceptional ability. Instead, the decision only addressed the Petitioner's eligibility for a national 
interest waiver. Therefore, the issue for consideration 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. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The Petitioner held a number of positions in Brazil between 1986 and 2018, when he entered the 
United States as the F-2 spouse of an F-1 nonimmigrant student. In addition to practicing law, the 
Petitioner worked as "the Managing Partner at ... a passenger road transport company"; "the Partner 
in charge of the workforce" at a company that provided cargo shipping support services; a "Partner of 
... a venue rental company"; and founder of a "consulting service" company. After aniving in the 
United States in 2018, he served as the "Treasurer and Partner of ... a glass and fa9ade cleaning 
company in Florida" in 2018 and 2019.2 
The description of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has not been fully consistent in this proceeding. 
On the petition form, the Petitioner indicated that he seeks employment as a lawyer. A statement 
submitted with the petition indicates that the Petitioner "intends to advance his career as a Lawyer 
Specialized in Judicial Recovery, as well as develop, implement and advise using his extensive 
handling of judicial recovery. [The Petitioner] will make his services available to small and large 
companies in the private and public sector in the United States." The Petitioner's resume details his 
involvement with "Business bankruptcy restructuring" in Brazil, representing both debtors and 
creditors. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director asked for more details about the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. In response, the Petitioner stated that he "will establish a company focused on business 
consultancy, optimizing clients' operations, and aiding the recovery of small and medium-sized 
companies on the brink of bankruptcy." The Petitioner submitted a business plan for this company, 
and stated that the new company will employ "lawyers, accountants, company administrators, and 
marketers" to "analyze the clients' existing business operations, identify problem areas of 
improvement, devise and improvement plan, and help clients implement the plan." 
The Petitioner stated that his "proposed endeavor has not changed. . . . The Business Plan presented 
in response to the Service's RFE did not annul or modify [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor." But 
the business plan emphasizes "management consulting" rather than a legal practice, which had been 
the initial focus of the petition. The "Industry and Market Analysis" section of the business plan 
discusses "Management Consulting" rather than the practice of law, and the "Services" section of the 
2 As an F-2 nonimmigrant, the Petitioner was not authorized to work in the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(l5)(i). 
2 
business plan indicates that the company will provide "Administrative Consultancy" and 
"Administrative Assistance." 
The business plan refers to the Petitioner as the company's "principal legal consultant," and its 
discussion of the Petitioner's intended duties indicates that the Petitioner "will perform executive 
duties" and "provide any necessary training." It does not specify that he would practice law. 
The company described in the business plan has some relation to the Petitioner's initial description of 
the proposed endeavor, because it concerns helping companies to navigate bankruptcy proceedings or 
avoid them altogether, but it is not the same thing that the Petitioner originally described. 
The Petitioner's statement in response to the RFE also discusses an entirely new element of the 
proposed endeavor, involving advice to companies seeking to trade with Latin America, especially 
Brazil. The Petitioner stated that "his multicultural legal knowledge ... will most definitely assist 
U.S. companies and investors by mastering compliance requirements across multiple jurisdictions and 
target markets, explicitly those which they find challenging, such as Latin America." The business 
plan does not mention international trade at all, and neither did the Petitioner's original description of 
his proposed endeavor. 
The shift in emphasis from law to management consulting and the new assertions about cross-border 
trade both represent significant changes to the proposed endeavor as initially described. A petitioner 
may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make an 
apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 
169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director's discussion of the proposed endeavor's substantial merit is limited to the observation 
that the Petitioner submitted a letter from an "Associate Professor of Marketing [at] I I 
University, who opines that the petitioner satisfies the Dhanasar analytical framework." The Director 
stated that "the letter does not exempt the petitioner from establishing eligibility with independent, 
documentary evidence." But the Director did not state any determination as to whether the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit. 
The denial decision is incomplete, because the Director did not make determinations about substantial 
merit or the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification. These omissions, however, 
do not prevent us from making a decision on the merits of the petition, because the Director did make 
a decision on the national importance of the proposed endeavor. That decision, by itself, is sufficient 
to determine the outcome of the appeal. 
3 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. An undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has 
national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. But we do not evaluate prospective impact 
solely in geographic terms. Instead, we look for broader implications. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. 
Initially, the Petitioner submitted info1mation about bankruptcy and its economic impact and the 
national job outlook for lawyers. But the issue is not the overall national importance of judicial 
recovery and bankruptcy law or the aggregate impact of all bankruptcy cases in the United States. 
Rather, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor. 
Some of the background materials concern individual bankruptcy (which record materials call 
"Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy") rather than "Chapter 11" business bankruptcy. Because the 
Petitioner specified that he intends to provide services to businesses, he has not shown the relevance 
of the information about individual bankruptcy. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence about local lawyer shortages in some rural areas. The 
Petitioner resides in a suburb ofl IFlorida, and the "Personal Plan" submitted with the petition 
did not indicate any intention to practice law in a rural area. The Petitioner did not explain how his 
employment would have a significant effect on a shortage oflawyers in his specialty. 
In the RFE, the Director stated that the Petitioner must establish the importance of his specific 
endeavor, rather than "the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which [he] will work." 
In response, the Petitioner stated that his "work has palpable broader implications, as its results are 
widely disseminated to other professionals in the legal market. Indeed, by serving as a long-standing 
successful accountant [sic], [the Petitioner] assured his work would be noticed." The Petitioner did 
not elaborate, and he is not an accountant. 
The Petitioner also stated that "the broad implication of Petitioner's work ... certainly sets him apart 
from ordinary Lawyers." Rather than elaborate on this point, the Petitioner discussed his credentials 
and experience, stating, for instance, that he is a "Multidisciplinary Team Coordinator, with great 
experience and motivation to lead groups of professionals of different expertise," and that he has 
"Strong experience with the elaboration of Strategic Planning and Management and Business Plans, 
mainly directed to new enterprises and companies in crisis." The Petitioner did not explain how these 
details establish "palpable broader implications" as he claimed. 
As noted above, the response to the RFE included a business plan for a "management consulting" 
company that focuses on "advisory services and assistance to small and medium-sized companies 
considering filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy." The business plan indicates that the Petitioner's 
"Company will aid small and medium-sized companies throughout the U.S.," but this broad statement 
conflicts with the business plan's specific assertion that "[t]he Company's expansion plans include 
expanding its service availability to" 11 counties in central and southern Florida during the first four 
years of operations, and 'l ICalifornia in Year 5." 
4 
The business plan describes the Petitioner's work for some of his past clients, but does not explain the 
broader benefit. The business plan cites general statistics about small and medium-sized businesses 
in the United States, but this information does not document the likely impact of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. 
In te1ms ofjob creation, the business plan cites "national job multipliers published by the Econom[ic] 
Policy Institute" (EPI), indicating that "100 direct jobs in management of companies and enterprises 
... generate a total of 283.1 indirect jobs." Based on these figures, the business plan states: "Since 
[the Petitioner's company] will create 21 direct jobs by the end of Year 5, the total indirect jobs ... 
would reach 59 in the same period." 
Separately from the EPI figures, the business plan indicates that the Regional Input-Output Modeling 
System (RIMS II) multipliers for "Management Consulting Services in Florida" project "a final­
demand impact in employment, equivalent to 409 jobs in Year 5 ." The Petitioner did not address or 
explain the significant discrepancy between the EPI and RIMS II figures. Also, according to the 
business plan, all employees except the Petitioner would be part-time. The Petitioner did not show 
that the multipliers are the same for part-time and full-time jobs. 
We note that the RIMS II figures pertain to "management consulting services," while the EPI data 
relate to "management of companies." Therefore, the two sets of data appear to relate to related but 
distinct undertakings, neither of which appears to closely match the Petitioner's initial claim that he 
intends to work as a "lawyer." Even then, the EPI and RIMS II figures apply to broad categories of 
business, rather than specifically to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. General statistics do not show 
why the Petitioner's proposed endeavor qualifies him for an exemption from the statutory job offer 
requirement that ordinarily applies to his intended occupation. As the Director stated in the RFE: "In 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead USCIS must focus on the 'the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake.' See Dhanasar. 26 I&N Dec. at 889 ." 
The business plan cites the Petitioner's "willingness to transfer and disseminate his skills and 
knowledge to the U.S. market," but provides no specific details to establish the national importance 
of the Petitioner's intention to share his knowledge beyond training a small number of part-time 
employees. Also, the business plan also indicates that the Petitioner's company "will be committed 
to hiring highly skilled individuals with several years of industry-relevant experience," rather than 
individuals who would need to rely on the Petitioner to learn the necessary skills. 
Separate from the business plan, the Petitioner stated that he "also proposes to focus his activity in the 
U.S. by advising companies conducting cross-border deals or planning to conduct cross-border 
activities in Brazil." As noted above, this claim did not appear in the Petitioner's original description 
ofhis proposed endeavor, or in the business plan. The Petitioner provided statistics about the Brazilian 
economy and the aggregate economic impact of international trade, but this information does not show 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, specifically, will have broader implications beyond helping 
individual clients. Individuals involved with international trade are not statutorily exempt from the 
job offer requirement, and therefore a stated intention to participate in such trade is not sufficient to 
establish eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
5 
The Director denied the petition, stating: "the petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor in this 
case stands to sufficiently extend beyond an organization and its clients to impact the industry or field 
more broadly." The Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that the proposed 
endeavor would have significant economic impact. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had 
satisfied the second Dhanasar prong, but not the third. 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats prior claims that do not establish the "broader implications" 
contemplated in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. For example, the Petitioner discusses the 
overall importance of small businesses, but does not show how his proposed endeavor would have a 
significant impact beyond his company's clients. The Petitioner also states that he "will influence his 
peers in promoting cross-border transactions between Brazil and the U.S.," but offers few details 
beyond the general claim that "cross-border transactions ... present unique legal issues." The 
Petitioner has provided sometimes conflicting infonnation about his proposed endeavor, but he has 
not provided sufficient evidence to show that the proposed endeavor wanants the special benefit of a 
national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner has established that providing services to financially troubled companies benefits those 
companies, but he has not shown that his specific proposed endeavor would have a sufficient impact, 
economically or otherwise, to establish national importance under Dhanasar. 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to show that his 
proposed endeavor satisfies the first prong of the Dhanasar national interest test. Detailed discussion 
of the remaining prongs cannot change the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve argument 
on the other prongs. 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 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 unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter olL-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). 
6