dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 18, 2023 In Re: 29060652 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a foreign legal consultant, seeks classification as either a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional but that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is 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 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 l&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 immigrant 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 eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a 
discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of 
the Act. While neither statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter 
ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The 
Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional. 2 The record shows that the Petitioner possesses a bachelor of law degree from Brazil, 
obtained in 2011, followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). The Director also determined that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of the 
proposed endeavor. However, the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor, that she is well-positioned to advance it, or that, on balance, 
waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The Petitioner states that her proposed endeavor is to "provide my knowledge and skills in the [l]egal 
and [ a ]dministrative [ a ]reas, working both nationally and internationally in the private and public 
sectors." In her updated statement, which was submitted in response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE), the Petitioner states that she will offer her "extensive experience in law, labor law 
and labor process, litigation, negotiation, and consultations involving labor, business, civil, social 
security, and family law." The Petitioner further states that she will "advise and assist American 
companies in seizing profitable opportunities with legal certainty, generating revenue, preventing 
costs, avoiding losses, and securing resources while engaging in cross-jurisdiction businesses, 
especially in the Brazilian market." The Petitioner did not state whether she intends to pursue this 
endeavor through self-employment or whether she plans to seek employment at a company or law 
firm. However, the Petitioner did submit in response to the RFE correspondence with organizations 
seeking to hire attorneys or legal assistants as evidence of potential job opportunities. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, 
the Director concluded that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor has potential implications beyond her future employer or clients. The Director 
acknowledged the importance of the field of entrepreneurship in general, but noted that, in determining 
national importance, the relevant focus is not on the importance of the industry, field, or profession in 
which the individual will work, but rather on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to 
undertake. The Director also determined that there was insufficient evidence regarding the potential 
economic impact or job creation of the proposed endeavor to establish benefits to the regional or 
national economy that would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision contains "numerous erroneous 
conclusions of both law and fact." The Petitioner asserts that, contrary to the Director's conclusions, 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS. 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 Because the Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional, the Director did not 
make a finding as to whether the Petitioner established that she is an individual of exceptional ability. 
2 
the record does establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to have national or even global 
implications in the field and positive economic benefits that reach beyond her employers and clients 
to benefit the nation. Specifically, the Petitioner claims that she has established the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor based upon her past achievements in the field, her knowledge of 
the Brazilian market, her ability to facilitate trade between the United States and Brazil, the size of the 
global legal market, and her ability to promote equality and justice. 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that is 
regionally focused may nevertheless have national importance, such as an endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director that the record does not establish the proposed 
endeavor's national importance. First, as to the Petitioner's claim that her past achievements 
demonstrate the national importance of the endeavor, she asserts that "her contributions have rendered 
impressive results," that the results of her work "are widely disseminated to other professionals in the 
legal field," and that "she has made and continues to make contributions of significant impact­
including being responsible for defending her clients' rights and fostering justice and equality for 
clients and enhancing the human relations in the society." However, in support of these claims, the 
Petitioner does not cite on appeal to specific achievements or impacts of her work. Instead, the 
Petitioner recounts her professional work history, which includes internships at a legal publication and 
at the I ladministrative and legal assistant jobs, a job as a 
legislative advisor at a local city council's office, a legal advisor at two companies, and a partner at a 
law office. But the Petitioner does not describe-and the record does not contain evidence of-past 
achievements that have resulted in a broad impact on the legal field, and the Petitioner's general, 
conclusory statements to the contrary are insufficient to meet her burden of proof. 
Moreover, we also note that while a petitioner's achievements in the field may be relevant in some 
circumstances in establishing the potential prospective impact of their endeavor, the focus of the first 
prong is on the proposed endeavor itself and not the petitioner. See id. Evidence of the Petitioner's 
skills, expertise, and record of success generally relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the [ noncitizen ]" and whether they 
are well-positioned to advance it. Id. The Petitioner must establish that her specific endeavor-to 
work as a lawyer and legal consultant-has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. The 
Petitioner has not explained how her achievements in the field demonstrate that the endeavor has the 
potential to impact the legal field or the economy at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner also discusses on appeal a report about U.S. companies' interest in pursuing cross­
border transactions, and their concerns about the complexities of these types of deals. The Petitioner 
states that, with her ability to advise clients on cross-border transactions, her endeavor "will foster 
[f]oreign [t]rade and strengthen Brazil and U.S. commercial relations." The Petitioner also discusses 
the importance of the legal services industry and of trade to the United States economy. The Petitioner 
submitted the headline of an article about the rising demand for contract attorneys, a report about 
3 
increasing trade between the United States and Brazil, and an article about the basics of contract 
negotiations. However, these claims and evidence related to foreign trade and legal services in general 
are not sufficient to demonstrate the impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. We agree 
with the Director that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national 
importance, we focus on the potential prospective impact of the "specific endeavor that the 
[noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The general 
claims about the growth of the legal services industry and the importance of trade between the United 
States and Brazil do not help establish that the Petitioner's specific endeavor has the potential to impact 
the U.S. economy, trade relations, or the legal field on a scale commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner claims that the endeavor will promote equality. The Petitioner states that "the 
justice gap affects those living in poverty and perpetuates poverty" and that "providing attorneys for 
litigants in cases involving housing, health care, and domestic violence saves governments money and 
creates both social and economic benefits." The Petitioner farther claims that her endeavor will 
"promote social peace and societal welfare and will impact directly and indirectly the entire nation." 
But the record is not clear that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor involves providing legal services to 
vulnerable or indigent populations. In the Petitioner's statement and elsewhere on appeal she primarily 
describes the focus of her endeavor as providing advice to corporate clients related to international 
business deals, labor law, negotiations, contracts, and foreign law issues. Although the record reflects 
the Petitioner's intention to advocate for and protect the interests of her clients, the record does not 
establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to promote equality and societal welfare 
beyond her clients' interests, or specifically for vulnerable populations, at a level commensurate with 
national importance. 
The Petitioner makes many broad claims on appeal about the national importance of the endeavor, 
asserting that the Petitioner's services "will result in a substantial impact on the legal industry," that 
the endeavor "will create a positive ripple effect in the society," and that her expertise "will translate 
into economic benefits for U.S. companies along with the increase in productivity, competitiveness, 
generation of revenue, creation (sic), and support of U.S. jobs." However, these claims are not 
supported by the evidence in the record. The record includes the Petitioner's initial statement, an 
updated statement submitted in response to the RFE, her educational and professional history, 
reference letters, and articles about trade relations and the legal occupation. Although the evidence 
demonstrates that the Petitioner is an experienced attorney in Brazil and that she intends to provide 
legal services in the United States, the evidence does not demonstrate that the potential prospective 
impact of this endeavor will benefit the U.S. economy or the legal field at a level that would rise to 
national importance. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by 
the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We acknowledge 
the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to the second and third prongs of Dhanasar but, having found 
that the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as to national importance, we reserve 
our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 
4 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the national importance requirement of the first prong of Dhanasar. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5