dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 31, 2023 In Re: 28431928 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner is a lawyer and entrepreneur who 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 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 record 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 
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. 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 also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director's decision does not render a determination as to whether the Petitioner qualifies as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree and instead focuses on the Petitioner's 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. 2 Therefore, the issue before us on appeal 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. In discussing the first prong of the analytical framework set forth in 
Dhanasar, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that her endeavor has either 
substantial merit or national importance. 
A. Substantial Merit 
First, we will address the issue of substantial merit, which may be demonstrated in a range of areas 
such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. The 
Director determined that the merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor "lacks specificity and 
consistency" and therefore concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that her endeavor has 
substantial merit. We disagree. 
The record contains several supporting statements from the Petitioner in which she consistently 
maintained that her proposed endeavor is to use her legal education and training to operate a law firm 
where she will serve as one of two managing partners, providing legal services to businesses of all 
sizes, as well as to individual clients. The Petitioner also provided a business plan in which she 
discussed her professional qualifications that will enable her to provide legal and managerial services, 
attract foreign investors to do business in the United States, and offer pro bono legal services to 
individuals in underdeveloped communities. In addition, the Petitioner provided articles discussing 
the role of immigrant entrepreneurs in driving economic growth in the pandemic recovery, the role of 
lawyers in stimulating the economy, and the underrepresentation of females in the legal profession. 
We conclude that the record supports the Petitioner's claim that her proposed work as a lawyer and 
entrepreneur has substantial merit, and we therefore withdraw the Director's adverse conclusion on 
this issue. 
B. National Importance 
Notwithstanding our favorable determination on the issue of substantial merit, for the reasons to be 
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. 
2 Although the denial does not address the issue of whether the Petitioner merits the EB-2 classification as an advanced 
degree professional. the Director made a favorable determination on this issue in the previously issued request for evidence 
(RFE). We also note that the record supports 
I
that prior finding based on the Petitioner's degree certificate and 
corresponding transcript from thel University School of Law. However, because the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated her eligibility for a national interest waiver on appeal, we need not remand this matter for the purpose of 
having the Director further address whether the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. 
2 
As noted above, the record contains a business plan which states that by offering "quality legal services 
to the American companies and population" the Petitioner's law firm will generate tax revenue and 
create a projected 42 jobs by its fifth year of operation, thereby strengthening the U.S. economy and 
the "law firm industry." The business plan states that the Petitioner seeks to "act in economic 
depressed areas and underdeveloped communities in Florida" and claims that the firm's chief 
contribution will be its "continuous and permanent generation of wealth for the [ n ]ation" by paying 
over $700,000 in taxes and investing over $1 million in a five-year period. 3 In a separate "definitive 
statement," the Petitioner discussed how she plans to use her legal expertise to assist clients and 
promote small business growth in historically underutilized business zones. She also claimed that her 
"strong reputation in Brazil" would allow her to secure "large clients in the U.S. market" and stated 
that her educational background and professional experience enabled her to negotiate commercial 
contracts, assist in conflict resolution in related transactional legal disputes, and gain "specialized 
knowledge of the laws related to the ... fuels sector in Brazil." In addition, the Petitioner highlighted 
her experience with cryptocurrency, which she claims enables her to gain knowledge that is relevant 
to potential investors in this market. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner did not establish a link 
between her proposed endeavor and the positive outcomes she claims her endeavor will generate, 
noting that the Petitioner did not provide corroborating evidence to support the growth projections in 
her business plan. The Director determined that the Petitioner has not shown that her undertaking has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or offer substantial positive economic effects for the 
nation, noting that the endeavor's hiring projections would not substantially impact a community with 
over six million residents. Lastly, the Director determined that no evidence was provided to 
demonstrate that the benefits of the proposed endeavor would broadly impact the entrepreneurship and 
legal industries, finding that the endeavor's impact would likely be limited to the clients the 
Petitioner's law firm would serve. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that in denying the petition, the Director "imposed novel substantive 
and evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations." However, the Petitioner does 
not point to specific examples of this within the Director's request for evidence (RFE) and denial. 
Importantly, the Petitioner also does not offer detailed analysis explaining the particular ways in which 
the Director "imposed novel substantive and evidentiary requirements" in denying the petition. 
The Petitioner further alleges that the Director "did not apply the proper standard of proof in this case, 
instead imposing a stricter standard ... to the detriment of the appellant." Except where a different 
standard is specified by law, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing 
immigration benefit requests. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375 (AAO 2010); see also 
Matter ofMartinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter ofSao Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151, 152 
(BIA 1965). Accordingly, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing 
national interest waiver petitions. See generally 1 USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While the Petitioner asserts that she has provided evidence 
sufficient to demonstrate her eligibility for the EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver, she 
3 The record does not contain evidence that the Petitioner has either passed a U.S. bar or established a law firm. As such, 
there are no wage or financial documents to support the projections made in the Petitioner's business plan. 
3 
does not farther explain or identify a specific instance in which the Director applied a standard of 
proof other than the preponderance of evidence in denying the petition. 
In addressing the Director's adverse findings on the issue of national importance, the Petitioner 
reiterates the business plan's projections regarding revenue generation. However, she has not 
demonstrated how the claimed revenue projections in her business plan, even if credible, offer 
"substantial positive economic effects" for our nation that would reach the level of national importance 
as contemplated by Dhanasar. 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Likewise, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the projected staffing levels, which includes 42 direct jobs and 210 indirect jobs, would more 
broadly impact Florida, the region, or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national 
importance. Further, in addressing national importance in the first prong of the framework, the 
Dhanasar decision sets out that the focus is on the specific endeavor being proposed. As such, we do 
not consider the indirect consequences of a petitioner's activity when determining whether it is of 
national importance. And although the Petitioner highlights her "business achievements and expertise 
throughout over five (5) years of work experience," these factors do not address the merits of the 
proposed endeavor, nor do they explain how the Petitioner's endeavor will have broader implications 
reaching beyond the clients her law firm will represent. In sum, the Petitioner makes no compelling 
arguments nor offers evidence to overcome the Director's analysis and conclusion regarding the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed work does not 
meet the national importance portion of 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4