dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 12, 2024 In Re: 34870978 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an attorney, 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 the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the best 
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 I&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. Matter ofDhanasar, 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 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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 Petitioner proposes to start a law firm, with the aim of 
providing immigration paralegal and legal advisory services, preparing civil and criminal law 
petitions, appearing in court, and preparing individuals for immigration interviews. The Petitioner 
plans to "provide services to a broad range of business subjects within the industry." 
In the denial decision, the Director determined the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa 
classification as an advanced degree professional. However, the Director found the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver as she did not demonstrate the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor; that she is well-positioned to advance the endeavor; or that, on balance, it 
would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor 
certification. 
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. 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 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 implications 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. 
Although the Director found the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director also determined 
the evidence did not establish its national importance. Specifically, the Director found the submitted 
business plan and other evidence of record did not establish the endeavor would have broader 
implications, or national or global implications, within a particular field; significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers; substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area; broadly enhance societal welfare, or broadly enhance cultural or artistic enrichment. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contests the Director's analysis of the record, contending a stricter standard 
of proof was applied to the case than the appropriate preponderance of the evidence standard. The 
Petitioner claims, in relevant part, that the Director did not give due regard to the Petitioner's submitted 
industry reports and articles that demonstrate both "the national importance of the [Petitioner's] 
proposed endeavor; as well as the steep shortage in the U.S. of professionals with her profile in the 
field." However, in the denial decision, the Director explicitly references the articles provided by the 
Petitioner and our review of the record reflects the Director considered the relevant evidence under 
2 
the appropriate preponderance of the evidence standard. In addition, the Petitioner's reliance on the 
need for entrepreneurs in the legal field in determining national importance is misplaced. The 
Petitioner claims the labor certification process is not relevant to her as her endeavor involves 
entrepreneurial efforts in an industry that is experiencing a shortage of workers. But the alleged 
shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render the proposed endeavor nationally 
important under the Dhanasar framework. It is noted the U.S. Department of Labor directly addresses 
shortages of qualified workers through its labor certification process. See id. at 885; see also 20 C.F.R. 
§ 656.1. And when evaluating national importance, the relevant query is not the importance of the 
industry or profession the individual will work, but on the specific endeavor the petitioner proposes to 
undertake. Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner asserts her submitted industry reports and articles demonstrate that immigrant 
entrepreneurs, such as the Petitioner, have directly contributed to the recovery and growth of the U.S. 
economy. Before the Director, the Petitioner submitted articles and fact sheets about lawyers, law 
firms, the legal industry, and immigrant entrepreneurs. The Petitioner claims her own endeavor will 
produce income and assist in the development of the U.S. economy. The Petitioner contends that 
is projected to generate wages to its employees exceeding five 
million dollars over five years. In addition, the Petitioner cites to her business plan in asserting her 
law firm will create a total of 34 direct jobs in the states of Massachusetts, Washington, and Ohio. 
However, the record does not contain supporting evidence corroborating the projected employment 
and financial figures indicated in the Petitioner's business plan or establish the significance of this 
data to show the endeavor would provide substantial economic benefits to the region or national 
economy more broadly at the requisite level. The Petitioner also asserts her endeavor, with ripple 
effects, will generate benefits to the business and operations industries and promote the success of 
U.S. corporations and investments. But while any economic activity has the potential to positively 
impact the economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential economic activity of her 
specific endeavor stands to create substantial positive economic effects in the relevant regions or that 
the endeavor's potential to employ U.S. workers is significant. In addition, the record does not 
demonstrate how the Petitioner's endeavor will extend sufficiently beyond impacting her own clients 
to advance or have broader implications in her field, at a level reaching national importance. Overall, 
the Petitioner has not offered established her proposed endeavor is nationally important and, as such, 
has not satisfied prong one of the Dhanasar framework to establish eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. 
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs 
As our finding on this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and reserve 
the Petitioner's arguments relating to the Director's adverse determinations of her eligibility under the 
additional 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). 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4