dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 20, 2023 In Re: 29227708 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a legal consultant, 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 record did not establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor or that it would be in the United States' interest to 
waive the requirement of a labor certification. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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 te1m "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 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 discretion1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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). 
• 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. 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification. Therefore, 
the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established eligibility for a national interest waiver 
under the Dhanasar framework. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we 
have reviewed and considered each one. 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas 
such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's business plan, recommendation letters, training certificates, and 
statements, all of which emphasize the Petitioner's education, experience, and skill. However, the 
Petitioner's personal and professional qualifications relate to the second prong of the 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 the Petitioner proposes to undertake has substantial 
merit and national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
In the initial filing, the Petitioner stated that she can work as a foreign law consultant so that U.S. 
companies investing in Brazil and Brazilian companies investing in the United States do not incur 
fines or losses. She will use her legal education and experience to integrate and facilitate the expansion 
of these businesses. In support, the Petitioner offered background information on presidential 
initiatives concerning Brazil, urban planning, registered warrants to resolve tax debts, as well as 
regulatory and compliance matters for construction companies. In response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE), she stated that she wi 11 open her own business, I I The 
verbatim description of her business offerings include: 
[l]nternational consultancy services specialized in legal matters between the United 
States and Brazil, helping American companies to participate in public bids or make 
business in Brazil and to deal with credit compensation and tax debts reducing its costs, 
at the same time that Brazilian companies may come to invest in American soil, and 
feel safer looking for a local consultancy (in American soil) that speaks Portuguese and 
understands of American jurisprudence. 
The prospective impact of her endeavor includes generating direct and indirect jobs and potentially 
boosting the North American economy. In support, she provided explanations of the "ripple" and 
"multiplier" effects of her business in creating jobs, generating taxes, and improving communities. 
Her business plan offers information regarding the value and economic worth of corporate consultancy 
and the value of immigrant entrepreneurs. She expressed her intent to hire local professionals in her 
2 
new business and estimated that by year five, her endeavor would generate $890,000 in revenue and 
create six direct jobs. 
The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the endeavor. We 
agree. As the endeavor's projected revenue and job creation figures necessarily depend upon the 
number and size of the Petitioner's clients, a simple claim of what she hopes her business will achieve 
amounts to little more than conjecture. Even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections 
were more than conjecture, they nevertheless would not suggest that the endeavor operates on a scale 
rising to the level of national importance. Further, the Petitioner does not offer an evidentiary basis to 
conclude that the "ripple effects" of her proposed endeavor will extend beyond her own business and 
clients. While any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact the economy, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity her proposed endeavor generates would 
rise to the level of affecting the U.S. economy. The record does not show that benefits to the U.S. 
regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level 
of '·substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. Although she asserted 
her endeavor will boost the North American economy, the Petitioner has not provided evidence of a 
sufficiently direct connection between her business and the claimed economic impact. 
We agree that corporate consultancy services, foreign investment, as well as legal and tax 
representation are important; however, the importance of overall industries and the occupations within 
them does not necessarily establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 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 id. at 889. The Petitioner's reliance on background information 
and statistics concerning the economic worth and value of an industry is misplaced, as it does not 
address the specific proposed endeavor's impact. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again highlights the "ripple" and "cascade" effects ofher endeavor and relies 
upon her qualifications, experience, and ability to carry out the proposed endeavor. She proposes to 
change her business name to '1 I" which focuses on tax credit 
services, litigation representation, affordable housing in the real estate market, and attracting foreign 
direct investment. In support, she provides anew business plan with sections discussing the affordable 
housing crisis and demonstrating how affordable homes create positive long-term effects for families 
and the economy. Her evidence also includes an explanation of what tax credits are and how they are 
useful, the difficulty of real estate zoning compliance, and the value of property and tax relief 
consultancy services. The updated business plan contains new revenue projections along with a new 
estimate that her business will create 29 direct jobs by year five. 
While we acknowledge these changes on appeal, they do not overcome our above analysis. To 
illustrate, although the Petitioner may offer services that other businesses use to build and sell 
affordable housing, she does not offer estimates of how many clients she will serve in this area, how 
the building and sale of affordable homes are directly attributable to her services, or how the housing 
occupants, even in the aggregate, will refurbish their community or produce the claimed contributions 
to the economy. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). We conclude that the claimed 
impact of her endeavor is overbroad, generalized, and unsubstantiated. The Petitioner has not offered 
3 
sufficient evidence to support her assertions of the endeavor's national importance. Therefore, she 
has not established eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong.2 
111. CONCLUSION 
The documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor 
as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of her eligibility under the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose. 
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on 
appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 We acknowledge the Petitioner's evidence on appeal, including her and her family's real estate holdings and financial 
capabilities; however, we do not analyze this evidence in the decision because it relates to the second Dhanasar prong. 
4