dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 28, 2024 In Re: 30173028 
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. § l 153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, he did not establish that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 1 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. 
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 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, 2 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
1 An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a 
bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor 's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
2 See also 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The Petitioner proposes to work as a legal consultant in the United States. The Petitioner states that 
his "expertise in social assistance, human rights, civil, public law, municipal secretariats, and 
counselor in municipalities, will generate a significant positive economic impact to U.S. Businesses 
and the National Interest" and "will contribute to the improvement of the several valuable sectors in 
the country, especially in the legal sector." 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit, and we agree. 
Turning to the national importance of his endeavor, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not 
establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance. Specifically, the Director acknowledged 
the Petitioner's evidence including the letters from counsel, his resume and personal statement, 
reference letters, and a letter from his law school. However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner 
did not submit sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his 
proposed endeavor would rise to the level of national importance. That is, the record did not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would stand to sufficiently extend beyond his 
future clients and employer( s) to impact the legal industry more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. 
The Director also noted that while the authors of the provided recommendation letters praised the 
Petitioner's personal and professional achievements and qualifications, they did not provide 
persuasive detail concerning the national importance of his proposed endeavor. In addition, the 
Director highlighted the Petitioner's statement regarding the worker shortage in the U.S. legal field. 
However, as the Director indicated, a national shortage of workers in the legal field is not, in and of 
itself, sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. For instance, the 
Department of Labor directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through the labor certification process. 
Moreover, the Director also concluded the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor had 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects 
for the United States. The Director reasoned that without evidence regarding any projected U.S. 
economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record did not sufficiently 
demonstrate benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his legal consulting 
position would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in their conclusions and asserts that his 
response to the request for evidence (RFE) "clearly demonstrated that the proposed endeavor qualifies 
under the national importance prong and is sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor rises to the significant level of national importance to the U.S." The Petitioner also generally 
asserts that the evidence shows that his proposed endeavor would address critical issues and challenges 
2 
affecting the United States and its people, have broader implications in his field, and substantial 
economic benefits. In support, the Petitioner repeats verbatim his arguments regarding the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor from his RFE response without explaining why we should find 
these claims any more persuasive than the Director did. Further, he does not provide any additional 
evidence and does not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the 
unfavorable decision. This alone is grounds for dismissal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Therefore, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision as it relates to this prong. See Matter of 
Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 
1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally 
accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st 
Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of Appeals in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and 
affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address his eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. 3 The burden 
of proof is on the Petitioner to establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The Petitioner 
has not done so here and, therefore, we conclude that he has not established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad. 429 U.S. 24. 25 (1976) ("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 alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3