dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 01, 2024 In Re: 33950210 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a lawyer, 1 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 that although the Petitioner 
was eligible for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, he did not establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 
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 qualify for the EB-2 immigrant classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
Once the petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then 
demonstrate 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 ofDhanasar, 26 l&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,2 grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 The terms lawyer and attorney are used interchangeably throughout the record. 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth , Eleventh , and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
• 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The 
Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional, and the record supports this determination. 3 The Director also found that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor had substantial merit. The remaining issues, therefore, are whether the Petitioner 
has established that his endeavor has national importance and, if so, whether he is well-positioned to 
advance it and whether, on balance, waiving the job requirement in his case would benefit the United 
States. 
Upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to establish that his 
proposed endeavor has national importance. Because he is ineligible for a national interest waiver on 
that basis alone, we will not address whether he meets the other two Dhanasar prongs. 
The Petitioner initially indicated that his proposed endeavor is to work as a lawyer in I INew 
Jersey. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner elaborated on his 
proposed endeavor in his May 2023 Business Plan as follows: 
_____________ will establish a bilateral service relationship, 
performing legal services in many matters such as real estate law, property law, 
intellectual property law, commercial law, company law, citizenship law to individuals 
and companies who want to establish a company, invest, apply to government 
incentives, apply for intellectual property rights, obtain citizenship, in addition to 
investment advice, serving both Turkey, the US and other countries that need services. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish his endeavor's national importance, 
noting that although the Petitioner cited the general demand for legal practitioners in diverse 
communities, this argument addressed the substantial merit of the endeavor, rather than its national 
importance. The Director noted that the Petitioner had not established that his endeavor would impact 
the field of law on a broader level, beyond the benefit to his clients. Regarding the Petitioner's 
projection of 29 jobs within 5 years of operation, the Director observed that the record did not 
adequately support the basis for such projections. Similarly, the record did not indicate the number of 
hours of labor required from each employee, did not provide a means of assessing the Petitioner's 
claim that 29 jobs would be generated, or how 29 new jobs in New Jersey would have substantial 
economic effects. The Director determined that the Petitioner's personal statement was aspirational 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
3 The record reflects that in 2014 the Petitioner obtained a bachelor's in law degree from _______ in 
Turkey and has at least eight years of progressive experience in the specialty, as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). 
2 
and did not clarify how the benefits of the Petitioner's law firm would extend beyond his company or 
clients. The record included several letters ofrecommendation praising the Petitioner's professional 
competence. As a result, the Director determined that the Petitioner was well-positioned to continue 
working as a lawyer, but the letters lacked the specificity required to demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
endeavor had national importance. We need not address whether the Director was correct in 
concluding that the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, because based 
on the evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director imposed novel substantive and evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations. The Petitioner further asserts that the Director 
"did not apply the proper standard of proof . . . instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously 
applied the law." However, a review of the record does not support the Petitioner's claim. The 
standard of proof in this proceeding is a 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). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
The Petitioner asserts that he will be "addressing an industry shortage, which cannot be addressed by 
the U.S. workers as demand exceeds supply" and that we should consider "the impending shortage of 
business professionals that the United States is already beginning to face, and the [Petitioner's] 
extensive experience ... showing his ability to immediately contribute to the U.S." However, the 
alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor 
nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are 
directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
The Petitioner argues that his over nine years of legal practice and a demonstrated commitment to 
upholding the highest standards of the legal profession makes him exceptionally well-positioned to 
lead the venture. He states that he has served as a co-founder and owner/attorney, legal intern, 
conciliator, attorney observer, attorney and other related positions. The Petitioner highlights his 
intention to "specialize in providing comprehensive legal consulting services, which include but are 
not limited to corporate law, international trade, immigration, and intellectual property, refugee, and 
pro bono legal advice." In addition, the Petitioner plans to "support foreign entities in understanding 
and fulfilling regulatory requirements" and believes his firm is poised to have "significant impact by 
attracting foreign investments and fostering trade relations the benefit both Turkey and the United 
States." However, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. Moreover, the issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake 
has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
The Petitioner states that the Director did not give due regard to the Petitioner's resume, Professional 
Plan, work in the field, letters of recommendation and industry report and articles. However, as he 
does not provide specific examples of factual or legal errors in the Director's analysis of the evidence, 
3 
as it relates to the endeavor's national importance, we are unable to meaningfully address these 
assertions. Moreover, as we previously observed, the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's 
documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest 
waiver. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his endeavor as an attorney. 
We have reviewed the previously provided evidence 4 and agree with the Director that it is inadequate 
to show that the Petitioner's proposed undertaking meets this requirement. 
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 specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Although the Petitioner 
provided industry reports and articles which discuss how immigrant entrepreneurs such as the 
Petitioner play a vital role in the recovery of the U.S. economy and directly contribute to economic 
growth, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of 
providing his services as an attorney. 5 In Dhanasar, we 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. 
The Petitioner also has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or will otherwise result in substantial positive economic effects for the United 
States. Although he indicates on appeal that he will generate jobs in "underutilized areas, improving 
the wages and the working conditions for U.S. workers, and helping the local community bring 
investments to the region," he does not specifically explain how his work as a lawyer might lead to 
employment of U.S. workers or bring about other substantial positive economic effects, particularly 
in an economically depressed area. 
Based on the above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to establish that 
his proposed endeavor has national importance, as required under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. Because he is ineligible for a national interest waiver on that basis alone, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding Dhanasar 's third 
prong. 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, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 The Petitioner does not submit any additional evidence on appeal and references his RFE response instead. 
5 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the 
national importance part. 
4