dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 19, 2024 In Re: 33345438 
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 that though the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, she 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 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 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 qualify for the underlying 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 establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 
they must then demonstrate 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 a matter of discretion, 1 grant a 
national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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 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 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See 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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. 
According to the Petitioner's professional plan provided with the initial filing, she intends to "perform 
as a legal consultant, utilizing all of the knowledge [ she has] acquired in the academic program and 
courses [she] completed, along with [her] professional experience, which have considerably 
contributed to the successful development of [her] work in an efficient manner, guaranteeing the best 
results." The Petitioner indicated that her proposed endeavor is to offer her "vast experience as a legal 
consultant in the area of commercial law, also known as mercantile law or trade law" which "applies 
to the rights, relations, and conduct of persons and business engaged in commerce, merchandising, 
trade, and sales." The Petitioner "will advise and provide legal consulting specialized in Bids and 
Contracts, with expertise in Public Law working directly in the legal procurement process that take 
place through Public Bids." She intends to take the American bar examination "in order to be licensed 
to practice law in the country and assist American citizens with the provision of high-performance 
legal services." In support of her eligibility, the Petitioner also submitted an expert opinion letter, 
recommendation letters, and documents related to her education and professional experience. 
The Director determined, in part, that the Petitioner's initial filing did not demonstrate the proposed 
endeavor's national importance and issued a request for evidence. In response, the Petitioner 
submitted additional documentation, to include an updated resume and professional plan, a new 
reference letter, information related to her employment and income, and correspondence from two 
individuals discussing possible job offers. The Petitioner indicated that her proposed endeavor as a 
legal consultant has national importance because her "expertise in international business, public bids 
and procurement, sports infrastructure, healthcare, and startups irrefutably contributes to economic 
growth, job creation, and the advancement of industries on both national and international scales." 
Her proposed endeavor "will play a critical role in supporting and advancing" U.S. government 
initiatives relating to transparency and efficiency, corporate taxation and compliance, and international 
trade and business development. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that though her proposed endeavor as a legal consultant 
had substantial merit, the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
2 
impact of her endeavor rises to the level of national importance. The Director found that the evidence 
did not demonstrate the benefit of the Petitioner's endeavor would extend beyond potential clients or 
employers at a level sufficient to demonstrate national importance. The Petitioner did not show that 
her proposed endeavor would result in significant job growth or "substantial positive economic 
effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The Director acknowledged the recommendation 
and expert opinion letters and determined that the record did not contain corroborating evidence 
demonstrating the Petitioner's work has potential implications that are of national importance to the 
United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director made numerous erroneous conclusions of law and 
fact. She asserts that the record demonstrates her "unique endeavor in the legal sector will have 
national and global implications in the field of business," contribute to "societal welfare as [the 
Petitioner] will ensure bidders are compliant with legal requirements including the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act," result in "substantially positive economic effects as she will foster international 
commercial opportunities to American companies," create "potential new employment opportunities 
in the American economy," and support "relevant government initiatives." 
Upon review, the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence 
to evaluate whether she had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she meets the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. 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 I&N 
Dec. at 889. Generally, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a 
petitioner's work. We noted in Dhanasar that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed 
endeavor and 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. Although the Petitioner discusses 
the value and importance oflegal consultancy services and its impact on the U.S. economy and society, 
Dhanasar requires us to focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake," not the importance of the field, industry, or profession. Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner provided recommendation and expert opinion letters and documents relating to her 
education and professional experience. However, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities 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 she proposes to 
undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. The record in its totality does not 
show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's specific services stand to sufficiently 
extend beyond her prospective employers or clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Further 
analysis of her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would 
serve no meaningful purpose. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also 
3 
Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal 
where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4