dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY. 20, 2024 In Re: 30833609 
Appeal of Texas 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 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested EB-2 immigrant classification or the requested 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 oJChawathe, 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. 53 7, 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. An 
advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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). 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. 3 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion4, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts he is eligible for the requested EB-2 immigrant classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability as well as the requested national interest waiver. Upon de novo 
review, we conclude the Petitioner is not eligible for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 
framework, and we will therefore decline to reach and hereby reserve the issue of his EB-2 eligibility. 5 
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 Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a legal consultant "to continue using his 
expertise and knowledge in the areas of labor, civil, and social security law, in addition to the 
administrative field ... to provide assistance in legal matters and advise in legal documentation, 
negotiations, contracts, and much more." Specifically, the Petitioner "seeks to offer his expertise to 
businesses and individuals in need of navigating the complex legalities of the Brazilian market." In 
support of this endeavor, the Petitioner detailed his professional plans, which primarily focused on the 
Petitioner's prior experience working as an attorney in Brazil advising companies in numerous 
industries. The Petitioner asserted that he is "uniquely qualified to help U.S. companies better 
3 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted 
and then, if it satisfies the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination) ; see 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
4 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Goining 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
5 Where a case warrants a dismissal regardless of other eligibility considerations , it is unnecessary that we address those 
other considerations . Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 332 (2022) (citing INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25- 26 (1976) 
(finding agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
decision)) . 
2 
negotiate the current political turmoil and economic difficulties in Brazil[, and] would work well to 
serve as a consultant for multinational companies, including those companies doing business or 
planning to do business in Brazil." To accomplish this, he stated he would "direct and manage 
activities related to the labor, social security, and commercial areas for companies that are interested 
in establishing a branch in Brazil." The Petitioner also claimed his endeavor would ultimately 
contribute to the U.S. economy due to the increased flow of money throughout the United States 
resulting from his clients' increased business revenue. 
The Director concluded that, while the Petitioner established the substantial merit of his endeavor, he 
did not establish its national importance, as the record did not show his specific endeavor would result 
in broader implications to the field, beyond the direct impact to his potential clients. The Director also 
concluded the Petitioner did not establish that his endeavor would result in "substantial economic 
effects," as contemplated in Dhanasar. See Dhansar at 890. On appeal, the Petitioner generally 
asserts that the Director did not apply the correct burden of proof and failed to properly consider the 
evidence establishing his credentials and experience in the field, the industry reports establishing the 
national importance of the legal field as well as the shortage of professionals within his field. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Upon 
de novo review, we agree with Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not established, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that his endeavor of working as a legal consultant for various U.S. 
businesses has national importance as contemplated under the Dhanasar framework. 
The record contains media articles and industry reports on the topics of the legal profession, the legal 
services industry in the United States, and the demand for skilled professionals in this field. In 
addition, the Petitioner provided articles and reports discussing U.S.-Brazil trade opportunities, the 
tax-related complexities of doing business in Brazil and Latin America, and the economic benefits of 
international trade and foreign direct investment in the United States. We agree that this evidence 
supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. In 
determining national importance, however, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake" and its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. 
Therefore, while we recognize the role of legal consultants in assisting businesses to maximize 
profitability and trade opportunities, the Petitioner's intent to work in this field alone is not sufficient 
to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, we emphasized that "we 
look for broader implications" of the specific proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]n undertaking may have 
national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular 
field." 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
3 
Notably, on appeal, the Petitioner does not address the Director's conclusions regarding the limited 
implications of his spec[fic endeavor, and instead continues to focus primarily on the importance of 
the legal and business development fields as well as his professional experience. Likewise, while the 
Petitioner asserts that his "vast professional experience, accomplishments, and unrivaled knowledge 
in both Brazilian and international law position him as an invaluable asset to American businesses and 
the U.S. economy at large," his expertise acquired through his academic and professional career relates 
to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor 
to the foreign national." Id. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes 
to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. A determination regarding the 
claimed national importance of a specific proposed endeavor generally cannot be inferred based on 
the Petitioner's past achievements, just as it cannot be inferred based on general claims about the 
importance of a given field or industry. 
The expert opinion letter from Professor L-M- similarly focuses on the Petitioner's background and 
the importance of trade between the United States and Brazil when addressing the national importance, 
without establishing that the prospective impact of his specific endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance contemplated under Dhanasar. The letter states "[h ]aving the benefit of the professional 
expertise of a seasoned [a]ttomey can be advantageous in helping U.S. companies successfully 
navigate the myriad complex regional trading laws and bureaucracies" when entering the market in 
Brazil. Yet, the expert does not establish that the broader implications of the Petitioner's endeavor 
will extend beyond the benefits provided to his clients. 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. Id. at 893. Similarly, the Petitioner's general assertions of 
improving and expanding his clients' business operations in the United States and Brazil do not 
establish that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently impact the field more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Moreover, the professor also asserts the Petitioner will "use 
his experience in business and labor law to help small and medium-sized enterprises in the U[ nited] 
S[tates] improve operations and achieve better productivity and profitability levels," ultimately 
resulting in increased tax revenue for the United States. While any increased business activity has the 
potential to positively impact the economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic 
activity resulting from his work as a legal consultant would rise to the level of having regional or 
national economic impacts. 
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 foreign national'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). Here, the expert opinion letter lacked 
relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also asserts that he "wants to take a stand and impact, generating jobs for 
U.S. workers ... improving wages and the working conditions of U.S. workers, [and] hel[p] the [l]ocal 
[c]ommunity bring investments into the region and economic development." However, the Petitioner 
4 
did not provide sufficient evidence to explain how his employment as a legal consultant would directly 
result in "substantial positive economic effects" beyond the financial benefits to his clients. Dhanasar 
at 890. 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.C. 1990)(holding 
that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
Finally, the Petitioner also does not elaborate on how his employment as a legal consultant would 
meaningfully address the claimed shortage of legal professionals at a national level. A shortage of 
qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual legal consultant nationally 
important under the Dhanasar precedent decision. Several of the Petitioner's claims of national 
importance could reasonably apply to any legal consultant working within international business 
development, but Congress did not provide a blanket exemption for this occupation with respect to the 
job offer and labor certification requirement. 6 
While the Petitioner's evidence shows how his proposed endeavor may stand to positively impact his 
clients, it does not demonstrate how the endeavor will have a broader impact consistent with national 
importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor meets the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
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. Since the identified basis for denial 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 as well as a determination as to whether the Petitioner has met 
the requirements ofEB-2 classification. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 The U.S. Depa11ment of Labor addresses shortages of qualified workers through the labor certification process. A 
determination as to whether the benefits inherent in the labor certification process are outweighed by other favorable factors 
relates to the balancing analysis set forth under the third prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
5