dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 26081083 Date : MAY 1, 2023 
Appeal of Nebraska 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 and as an individual of exceptional ability, 
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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 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. 
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 did not render a determination as to whether the Petitioner qualifies as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional 
ability. Instead, the decision only addressed the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Therefore, the issue for consideration 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. 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. 2 
With respect to her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner initially indicated that she intends to continue to 
work as a lawyer. She asserted that her "helpful guidance in the area of Brazilian law is indispensable for 
U.S. companies engaged in any cross-border projects .... Clients may include U.S. organizations doing 
business or planning to do business in Brazil." The Petitioner further stated that she plans "to work with 
law firms, businesses, or corporations to provide expert advice as a lawyer." She also explained that she 
will "provide legal advisory services to U.S. businesses and have the capacity to assist Latin American 
businesses planning to market in the U.S. through import/export and to those who want to establish a 
physical business location in the United States." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner asserted that her "proposed 
endeavor in the United States is to offer my specialized legal services in corporate law, legal compliance, 
tax law and labor law." She maintained that her "guidance in Brazilian laws is indispensable for U.S. 
companies engaged in any cross-border projects. I am able to provide my expertise on the implementation 
of domestic rules in Brazil and counsel clients in disputes related to their international business issues." 
The Petitioner further explained that her "[ c ]lients may include U.S. organizations doing business or 
planning to do business in Brazil and Latin America." In addition, she stated that she planned to "work 
with law firms, businesses, or corporations to provide expert advice as a lawyer" and to act as "a bridge 
between American and Brazilian companies, exporting or increasing their activities in Brazil in a more 
appropriate way." 
The record includes information about corporate law and its purpose, the benefit of hiring a corporate 
lawyer, labor law, and contract law. In addition, the Petitioner provided articles discussing the adverse 
consequences associated with civil court closures, factors that make U.S. employment the worst in the 
developed world, a shortage of lawyers offering civil legal services in New Mexico, and New 
Mexico's proposed initiative aimed at allowing licensed legal technicians to address the state's unmet 
legal needs. She also submitted information about attorney regulation reform as a way to improve 
access to legal services, a scarcity of attorneys in rural areas of New York state, running a rural law 
practice in New York state, Washington state's usage of legal technicians to close the justice gap, and 
the number of lawyers per capita in the United States. The record therefore supports the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
2 Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility for a national interest waiver on appeal, we need not remand 
the decision for the Director to determine whether she qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. 
2 
In the decision 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 had not shown 
that her undertaking stands "to broadly impact the corporate law field" or otherwise offers "potential 
prospective impact" beyond her future employer. 
In her appeal brief, the Petitioner argues that "the demand for legal services has outpaced the supply of 
lawyers, creating an acute talent shortage." We are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claim that her 
proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of lawyers. Here, the Petitioner has not 
established that her proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national 
shortage. Further, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor 
through the labor certification process. 
The Petitioner also contends that her proposed endeavor is of national importance due to her "professional 
history" and "past achievements." She points to her "in-depth knowledge and experience in various 
aspects of the law," including "legal counseling in contract negotiation." The Petitioner's claims relating 
to her knowledge and record of success in her field relate to the second prong ofthe Dhanasar framework, 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here 
is whether the specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake has national importance under 
Dhanasar's first prong. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that her undertaking offers "national implications in the field of 
corporate law and significant potential to employ U.S. workers." She further argues that her proposed 
work contributes "toward the advancement of U.S. businesses through key tax changes and 
implementations." The Petitioner also claims that her proposed endeavor stands to assist her clients 
through minimizing tax liabilities, reducing the cost of tax compliance, increased stability , increased 
profits, solving problematic situations and incidents, increasing operational efficiency, advancing 
business expansion, navigating complex tax and regulatory environments, managing the critical demands 
of internal clients, accurately deciphering and implementing the new complicated global tax system, 
providing proper legal advice and consulting in various scenarios, encouraging and attracting outside 
investors, and increasing the likelihood of long-term success. Furthermore, she contends that her 
undertaking wi11 impact "the entire nation" and benefit "the U.S. economy entirely." 
In determining national importance , the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry , 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar , 26 l&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 
implication s 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. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner' s proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. While the 
Petitioner 's statements reflect her intention to provide valuable legal services to her clients, she has 
not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her 
3 
proposed endeavor rises to the level of 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, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown 
that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her future U.S. employer or legal 
clientele to impact her field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she propo ses to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation . Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional 
or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's legal and business projects would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not established 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 , with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4