dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 1 7, 2024 In Re: 31860286 
Appeal of Texas 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, 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 Petitioner qualified for 
EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but 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 pursuant to 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 qualify for EB-2 visa 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. 
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: 
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 unpublish ed 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 their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In his business plan, the Petitioner states he will establish a consulting firm in the United States that 
will advise United States-based businesses interested in entering the Brazilian market. The Petitioner 
explains he will lead the company, which will focus on providing advice on Brazilian law to businesses 
and individuals who are engaged in trading and direct foreign investment projects. The Petitioner 
states his company will be based inl IFlorida and will later expand across Florida and to other 
states. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. We agree. The only issue on appeal is whether he qualifies 
for and merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. We agree. 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Id. at 889. This consideration may include whether the 
proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically 
depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global 
implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 
889-90. The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor had significant 
potential to impact his field, employ United States workers, or otherwise have substantial positive 
economic effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director did not apply the preponderance of the evidence standard, 
only considered his proposed endeavor's potential to employ U.S. workers and its impact on the 
regional or national economy, and did not consider whether his proposed endeavor impacts a matter 
that a government entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of national 
initiatives. The Petitioner states that according to the Congressional Research Service, during the 
Obama and Trump Administrations, United States and Brazilian officials pledged to form stronger 
partnerships and trade and investment between the two countries has deepened throughout the past 
two decades. The Petitioner submitted articles discussing U.S. companies looking to Brazil for new 
market opportunities, the 2020 investment climate in Brazil, and trade and economic cooperation 
2 
between the United States and Brazil. Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the 
importance of issues to a field in general. Rather, our assessment "focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, none of the articles mention the 
Petitioner, or otherwise address the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also claims his proposed endeavor can benefit the United States economy because 
businesses and individuals wishing to invest in Brazil need professional legal services to comply with 
relevant laws and regulations. The Petitioner asserts the expansion of American companies to Brazil 
will generate profit distribution in the United States, dividends to American shareholders, and jobs 
and taxes in the United States. The Petitioner does not demonstrate, however, that his work would 
extend beyond his company's individual clients to impact his field more broadly on a level 
commensurate with national importance. See id. (explaining that when assessing national importance 
"we look for broader implications"). 
The Petitioner further asserts that as a small business, his company would play a critical role in local 
economies because microbusinesses collectively employ 41 million people and have a five trillion­
dollar economic impact. The Petitioner claims his company will generate direct and indirect jobs and 
stimulate the investment of foreign companies in the United States. The Petitioner's business plan 
states the company will employ five individuals in the first year, increasing to 1 7 individuals in the 
fifth year. The business plan projects a net profit of $31,150 the first year, increasing to $103,995 in 
the fifth year. The business plan does not include an explanation of how its financial projections were 
calculated or comparative data on how its projected profits compare to other consulting firms. 
Although small businesses may collectively substantially impact the national economy, the Petitioner 
has not established that his company has significant potential to employ United States workers or 
would have other substantial positive economic effects indicative of national importance. See id. at 
890 (discussing substantial positive economic effects). 
The Petitioner further claims his proposed endeavor has national importance because he will use 
customer relationship management (CRM) software to manage sales and identify new business 
opportunities. The Petitioner does not indicate that he developed CRM software or otherwise made 
significant contributions with national or even global implications for his field. See id. at 889 
( discussing improved manufacturing processes or medical advances as examples of national or even 
global implications within a particular field). 
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, the 
record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his 
clientele to impact his field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic 
effects, has national or even global implications within his field, or has other broader implications 
indicating national importance. 
3 
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
The Petitioner asserts the Director erroneously failed to address the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 
However, the Petitioner has not established the 
national importance of his specific proposed endeavor 
and he does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs of 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, he has not demonstrated that he 
is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4