dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 23, 2024 In Re: 32371829 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a paralegal and an entrepreneur, seeks second preference immigrant classification 
(EB-2) 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 immigrant 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 Petitioner qualified 
for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 (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: 
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 unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The Petitioner submitted his diploma, transcripts, and an academic evaluation showing that 
he has the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in law, as well as employment letters 
demonstrating that he has five years of post-baccalaureate, progressive experience in the specialty. 
The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance 
under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 2 On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish his eligibility for a national interest waiver and the Director 
erred by not giving "due regard" to the evidence submitted, specifically his resume, business plan, 
documentation of his work in the field, letters of recommendation, and industry reports. However, 
we conclude that the Director discussed and analyzed pertinent evidence in the record and the 
Petitioner did not establish national importance per Dhanasar. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 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." Id. We also look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the proposed endeavor. Id. The 
Petitioner's endeavor is to develop a legal consulting firm named I 
"specializing in legal and commercial advising" in Utah, Florida, and Georgia, "offering clients unique 
services in a growing niche area of international trade." 
In Dhanasar, we noted that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it 
has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. Furthermore, we stated "[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's claim of national importance largely relies on the industry reports and articles. 
While these reports bring awareness to issues relevant to legal consulting and highlight the field in 
which the Petitioner intends to work, they do not specifically discuss the impact of the Petitioner's 
consulting services such that it demonstrates substantial economic effects or a broad reach to the legal 
2 The Director also concluded that the Petitioner met the second prong but did not demonstrate his eligibility under the 
third prong. 
2 
I 
profession or the industry. Although we recognize the importance of legal professionals, merely 
working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor. 
In addition, the Petitioner's resume and recommendation letters only address his past accomplishments 
as a lawyer specializing in criminal cases in Brazil, but they do not demonstrate national importance 
of his endeavor's "potential prospective impact." Although we acknowledge that the Petitioner made 
valuable contributions to his clients in the past, these documents pertain to the second prong of 
Dhanasar, whether he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor, and do not support the claims of 
the endeavor's national importance. 
Furthermore, the record does not suggest that the Petitioner's legal knowledge or methodologies 
somehow differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States, such 
that it would have national or even global implications with the legal field. The Petitioner has claimed 
that "his unique expertise and entrepreneurial methodology directly address the pressing needs and 
challenges facing the legal industry today." However, the expert opinion and recommendation letters 
discuss the Petitioner's successful handling of past projects, his expertise as a lawyer, and his work 
ethics, but do not specifically address the innovative nature of his methods or explain how his future 
endeavor will broadly impact the field. 
Although the Petitioner contends on appeal that he submitted a "well-crafted business plan" 
demonstrating significant benefits to the national economy, he has not provided independent and 
objective support for claims made in the plan. The business plan outlines the creation of 28 new jobs, 
an investment of $800,000, and the projected generation of $15.1 million in new revenue. But the 
plan by itself does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or 
adequately explain how these projections will be realized. The Petitioner must support his assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Here, 
the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in his business plan and his 
own statements, that his company's staffing level and business activity stand to provide substantial 
economic benefits regionally or to the United States as a whole. 
Similarly, the Petitioner has not provided independent and corroborating evidence to substantiate his 
claims that his company would hire a significant number of workers in economically depressed areas 
or how his investment would specifically impact the disadvantaged regions. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 890. The Petitioner claims on appeal that his consulting firm will be in "a HUBZone inl I 
UtahUtah" and "[support] the broader national goal of stimulating economic activity in these areas, 
aligning with federal efforts to promote economic equity and development." In the business plan, the 
Petitioner offers only generalized statements about establishing his business in "qualified HUBZones" 
but has not supported his claims of the endeavor's specific impact to the economically disadvantaged 
areas. 
The Petitioner does not provide any new evidence on appeal but generally alleges through counsel that 
the Director "did not apply the proper standard of proof in this case, instead imposing a stricter 
standard, and erroneously applied the law, to the detriment of the [Petitioner]." The standard of proof 
governing the immigration benefit requests is "preponderance of evidence." Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met his burden under the preponderance 
3 
standard, we evaluate whether a petitioner's claims are "more likely than not" or "probably" true, but 
also consider the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 
376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, the Petitioner does not further 
explain or identify any specific instance in which the Director applied a standard of proof other than 
the preponderance of evidence or misapplied the law in the decision, supported by pertinent law or 
regulation. Counsel's unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence. See, e.g., Matter of 
S-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998) (explaining that "statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of 
Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight"). 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavors extend beyond his 
future clients or employers, to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The economic benefits that the Petitioner 
claimed depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary 
tie between his endeavor and the claimed results. 
Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner did not establish national importance of the proposed endeavor 
and does not meet the first prong of Dhanasar. Therefore, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the 
Petitioner's arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs. 3 See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 In the decision. the Director concluded that the Petitioner meets the second prong of Dhanasar without providing any 
analysis of the evidence submitted. We disagree with the Director that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his 
endeavor and note that this is an additional ground for ineligibility to be addressed in any future proceedings. However, 
we reserve the second prong issues here as we conclude that the Petitioner did not demonstrate his eligibility under the 
first prong of Dhanasar. 
4