dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 26, 2024 In Re: 31491427 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a lawyer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 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 the Petitioner qualified for 
EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but did not establish 
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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 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 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85 , 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublish ed decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a lawyer who proposes to work as a law consultant for corporations seeking to expand 
their business with Latin American companies. In his Professional Plans and Statement submitted in 
response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner stated he would provide corporations 
with advice and guidance on labor, tax, and corporate law. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that he holds a foreign equivalent of a United States baccalaureate 
degree and has over five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty. The 
Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. We agree. The only issue on appeal is whether he qualifies for and 
merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. 
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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. We agree. 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Id. at 889. This consideration may include whether the 
proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically 
depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global 
implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 
889-90. The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor would have 
substantial positive economic effects or broader implications in his field beyond the individual 
companies with which he would work. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts "his performance will go beyond the impact on the specific companies 
he advises, considering that international business expansion affects various sectors." The Petitioner 
submitted letters from companies interested in working with him as evidence of the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. For example, __________ Chief Executive 
Officer (CEO) of states she is interested "in the contributions [the Petitioner] 
can bring to our business, guiding us in ways to follow the laws of both countries and guarantee the 
safest experience for our clients." and _______ CEOs of 
Istate: "We are especially interested in his ability in the area of business consulting 
and the benefits and security he can bring to our business, through the simplification of Brazilian and 
American laws." _______ CEO ofl Istates he would like to work with 
the Petitioner because "he can clarify to our clients in a simple and safe way, the main differences 
2 
I 
between Brazilian and American legal obligations, generating more reliability and, consequently, 
attracting more customers for our company." president of I 
affirms his interest "in the excellent work and contribution that Mr. I I can make for I in 
American territory." While these letters speak to interest in the Petitioner's services, discuss the 
benefits the Petitioner can bring to their individual companies, and are relevant to the second Dhanasar 
prong, they do not address any national or even global implications of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor, or other broader implications it would have in his field. Cf id. at 892 (stating Dhanasar 
submitted probative expert letters describing the importance of his specific research as it relates to 
U.S. strategic interests). 
The Petitioner also submitted letters from past employers and colleagues. For example, 
praises the Petitioner's past work as a partner at Mr.I llaw firm and states that with 
the Petitioner's consultancy, companies may expand their business "stimulating the local market or 
even the expansion and internationalization of American companies into the Brazilian market." Mr. 
I I expresses his confidence that the Petitioner's "career in the United States will be a continuation 
of the brilliant story he began building in Brazil over 28 years ago." also 
praises the Petitioner's work at I Iand states his belief the Petitioner will 
provide "greater legal security for numerous companies, which aids in expansions, profitability, and 
tax payments." _________ praises the Petitioner's work as a lawyer and consultant 
and states he "will undoubtedly help any company in the American market expand their business and 
generate more profit." 
Letters from the Petitioner's past clients similarly praise his work and express their confidence in his 
ability to succeed in the United States. For example, states the 
Petitioner is "fully capable of facilitating business expansion for American companies in the Brazilian 
market and vice versa, which will bring benefits to the American economy." The letters of the 
Petitioner's employers, colleagues and clients attest to the authors' belief in the Petitioner's ability to 
successfully consult for American companies, but they do not discuss any specific broader 
implications the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have in his field. See id. at 889 ( explaining that 
when assessing national importance "we look for broader implications"). 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from Associate Teaching Professor of 
Law at expressing her opinion that the Petitioner qualifies for 
a national interest waiver. Professor I I asserts the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
national importance because the management consulting industry is "poised to benefit from stronger 
economic growth" and industry profit is forecast to increase. She claims the Petitioner's work impacts 
the United States interest in economic partnership and a bilateral trade package with Brazil, which the 
United States designated as a major non-NATO ally in 2019. Professor I I further states the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor will broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural enrichment by 
helping to increase the profitability of small and medium-sized enterprises in the United States. 
However, when assessing national importance, we do not look to the importance of an industry or 
national interests in general, but instead "focu[ s] on the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Id. 
Professor I I also claims the Petitioner's proposed endeavor "has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers and will affect the economy positively" because he will help companies generate 
3 
expansion in the Latin American market. The Petitioner also claims he will contribute to the labor 
market by increasing the number of people hired by companies expanding internationally. Neither the 
Petitioner nor Professor I I specify how the Petitioner's work will result in significant 
employment of United States workers or have other positive economic effects beyond the individual 
companies that may retain his services as contemplated in Dhanasar. See id. at 890 ( discussing 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects as 
indicators of national importance). 
The Petitioner further states he presented articles that "underscore the importance of consultancy for 
the expansion of companies," which indicates the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The 
Petitioner submitted articles on the role of Latinos in small-business growth, contributions of 
immigrant-owned businesses to the national economy, Disney's focus on Latin America, how 
franchises impact the economy, and why immigrants are natural entrepreneurs. The determination of 
national importance does not focus on the importance of issues affecting the field in general, but 
"focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, 
none of the articles mention the Petitioner or address the potential prospective impact of his proposed 
endeavor. 
The Petitioner asserts that under Dhanasar, petitioners are not required to establish geographic breadth 
of their proposed endeavors and proposals focusing on one geographic area of the United States may 
be considered to have national importance. The Petitioner claims his focus on the state of Florida will 
"transcen[ d] geographical boundaries to impact the broader landscape of the American business 
ecosystem." However, the Petitioner does not specify how his work with individual companies will 
have broader implications in his field. See id. (explaining we do not evaluate prospective impact solely 
in geographic terms and "look for broader implications"). 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 show that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact legal 
consulting more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers, has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications 
within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. 
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor and he 
does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
( stating that "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 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). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, he has not demonstrated that he 
is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5