dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15821412 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP. 15, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference 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 EB-2 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 the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that he is eligible for a national 
interest waiver. In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203 (b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
1 In announcing this new framework. we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation. 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record indicates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 4 The remaining issue to be determined 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 
Petitioner describes his proposed endeavor as follows: 
I intend to continue my career in the legal and business industries, working as a [l]egal 
[a]nalyst, and helping U.S. and foreign companies, as well as U.S. citizens and foreign 
individuals, deal with complex cross-border transactions, as well as foreign direct 
investments (FDI), through the provision of services in international law, corporate 
law, tax planning, and strategic business and legal planning in new ventures. 
The fust stage of my proposed endeavor is to continue acting as an in-house counsel 
for multi-national companies, just like I am presently doing for [A-]. .. The second 
stage of my proposed endeavor is to launch my own consulting firm in the United 
States, where I will advise American and foreign entities on their inbound (U.S.-based) 
and outbound (international) business endeavors. To do this, I will also employ a team 
of consultants, particularly those with experience in tax law, corporate law, and 
international business. 5 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the fust prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 6 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. 7 Although the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable legal analysis and business consulting 
services for his employers and clients, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. For example, on appeal the Petitioner asserts that he will "enhance the country's national 
interests by elevating standards and policies to improve major national concerns, such as the United 
3 See Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs . 
4 The Petitioner holds a master's degree in international law from the University o,._~ __ _. 
5 The Petitioner also indicates that he "plans to sit for the bar exam, in order to become a licensed attorney in the United 
States." 
6 We acknow ledge the articles and opinion pieces provided by the Petitioner that highlight the importance of the 
international business and legal industries in the United States. We also agree with the Director that the Petitioner's 
endeavor has substantia l merit. 
7 We note that, while information about the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is necessary for us to determine 
whether he satisfies the Dhanasar framework, he need not have a job offer from a specific employer as he is applying for 
a waiver of the job offer requirement. 
3 
States' financial crisis and the limited access to experienced legal professionals in the country." But 
he has not sufficiently articulated or documented how his legal analyst and business management 
activities would broadly impact his field. 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. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Here, the Petitioner does not show that his 
proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and clientele to impact his field 
or the nation more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 8 
The Petitioner provides reference letters, including one from R-S-, who is vice president of finance for 
A- his current employer, who explained: 
[The Petitioner] has always been a key trusted member of the senior leadership team of 
the region, based on his high-level of experience, and he is consulted and involved in 
strategic decision-making processes, as well as managing and supporting the most 
important and confidential matters relating to human relations, legal entity risk 
management, fraud investigation, and tax law interpretation and application, among 
others. 
R-S- and other colleagues who provide reference letters favorably comment on the Petitioner's 
contributions to projects and initiatives in which they were mutually involved and emphasize his 
"widely lauded ability to gain an understanding of the local cultural and legal options ... "9 B-, former 
vice president of 0 -, discusses a methodology developed by the Petitioner involving "study, risk 
identification and consolidation, which allowed the company to save millions of dollars in consulting 
and to generate great efficiency in the execution of projects ." However, he does not sufficiently 
identify, analyze, or discuss the nature of the specific work the Petitioner will perform within his 
prospective endeavor in the United States. 10 
Collectively considering the submitted evidence, we conclude that the Petitioner does not adequately 
describe or demonstrate how his future legal and business consulting work stands to rise to the level 
of having national importance within his field. The record does not show, for instance, that the specific 
work the Petitioner proposes to undertake will offer original innovations to advance the legal and 
international business industries, or that it otherwise has wider implications in his field. 11 
In his appeal brief, the Petitioner asserts that he has "nearly twenty years of career experience, [ and] 
has directed companies into successful transnational trade agreements, provided legal solutions to 
complex cross-border transactions , and guided her [sic] companies towards mutually beneficial trade 
agreements for both parties." The Petitioner's skills and knowledge in his field relate to the second 
8 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
9 See, for instance, the letter of reference from H-D-, commercial director for P-. 
10 The submission of reference letters supportin g the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters to determine whether they support the petitioner 's eligibility. See 1756, i nc. v. U S. 
Att 'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) 
11 It is the Petitioner 's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidenc e that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) . In evaluating the evidence , eligibility is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. id. 
4 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he 
proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s first prong. 
Furthermore, while the Petitioner asserts there is a "concerning lack of qualified legal professionals to 
materially assist with cross-border transactions and foreign direct investments" in the United States, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our 
nation. He contends that his undertaking "is capable of producing substantially positive effects and 
maintaining the U.S. as a leading nation, due to the ripple effects of his professional activities." He also 
asserts that his work "within the high-growth industry oflaw and trade [ will result] in the overall financial 
health of Americans through increased revenue, employment of workers, contribution to the country's 
GDP, and an optimal environment." Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any 
projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not 
show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id at 
890. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed 
5