dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 12, 2024 In Re: 32480962 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a legal analyst and entrepreneur, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. 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, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). 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 although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, she had not 
established that a waiver of the required 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 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 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. 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. 
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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the 
noncitizen 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 the 
noncitizen 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 noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen 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, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, in light of the nature of the 
noncitizen's qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen 
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 noncitizen's 
contributions; and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent 
to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a legal analyst and entrepreneur through her 
company, ____________ The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 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. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining 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). 
2 
In the decision denying the pet1t10n, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit and that she is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The 
Director, however, concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated her proposed endeavor's 
national importance, and that, on balance, that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirement of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erroneously applied the relevant law. The 
Petitioner further argues that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof and instead 
imposed a stricter standard. The Petitioner maintains that she submitted sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance. While we do not discuss every piece of 
evidence individually, we have reviewed the entirety of the record and have considered the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the national waiver. 
The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as a legal analyst and 
entrepreneur. The Petitioner states that she will offer legal consultancy services in various legal fields 
including labor law, environmental law, and tax. 2 The record includes a resume, business plan, expert 
opinion letter, and recommendation letters, as well as industry reports and articles related to the legal 
field. The opinion letter's author states the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has significant potential to 
boost revenue and profit for businesses, create direct and indirect jobs, positively impact the economy 
through job creation and taxes, and promote cross-cultural exchange. The author also asserts that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national and global implications within the field of international 
business and law and impacts a matter that a government entity has described as having national 
importance or is the subject of national initiatives. The author, nonetheless, has not provided sufficient 
information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
rises to the level of national imp011ance. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. While 
the Petitioner claims her proposed endeavor is of national importance, the record does not show that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its clientele 
to impact the legal consulting field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. 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. Here, the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in her field, enhancements to U.S. 
societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects for the country that rise to the level of 
national importance. 
The Petitioner claims that her proposed endeavor will make a "substantial economic impact on the 
country's economy." The Petitioner, through her business plan, claims that her company will hire 3 7 
direct employees by year five as well as gamer total revenue of $3,456,337.50. The Petitioner, 
however, does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how 
2 We want to note that the Petitioner has not submitted documentation of an active law license in the United States, despite 
stating that she will offer consultancy services in various legal fields. Although this issue is not relevant here because we 
are dismissing the Petitioner's appeal on other grounds, we want to advise the Petitioner in case of a refiling of the NIW 
petition. 
3 
these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized. The Petitioner must support her assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly 
attributable to her future work, the record does not show that the benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner contends that her company's commitment to "job creation and economic growth" aligns 
with government initiatives focused on "boosting employment and strengthening the economy." The 
Petitioner further argues that several government initiatives and priorities in the legal and business 
consulting field align with the proposed endeavor's goals and objectives. Although we acknowledge 
the Petitioner's assertions and the submitted evidence, the record does not establish how the proposed 
endeavor will have broader implications beyond benefitting the Petitioner's clients and companies she 
elects to work with. Moreover, in determining national importance, 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." Id. at 889. See Dhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the 
proposed endeavor and that "[a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it 
has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. 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. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how she 
will positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy 
on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. 
It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without 
providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support her assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010). She has not done so. 
For the aforementioned reasons, 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 her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding 
her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 
which is unnecessary 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). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that she has not established that she 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. 
5