dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law / Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 19, 2024 In Re: 32430060 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a lawyer and entrepreneur, 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 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 l&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. 53 7, 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: 
• 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 unpublish ed 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 
In her business plan submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
states she will create and lead a limited liability company providing consulting and advisory services 
focused on the internationalization of business between Brazil and the United States. The Petitioner 
specifies the company will provide strategic planning, market analysis, advice on regulatory and legal 
issues, human resources consulting, contracts support, and training. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that she holds the equivalent of a United States bachelor's degree 
in law and has over five years of progressive experience in her specialty. She thus qualifies for EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree pursuant to the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The only issue on appeal is whether she 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 her 
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 that her proposed endeavor would 
have substantial positive economic effects and would sufficiently extend beyond its future clients to 
impact the industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts her company will profoundly impact the United States economy and 
claims the company will employ a significant number of American workers. In her business plan 
submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner states the company will employ six other individuals. 
On appeal she explains the company will be located in Florida, "one of the largest economies in the 
United States." The Petitioner does not indicate that her company will operate in an economically 
depressed area, and she has not established that the projected employment of six people demonstrates 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers. See id. at 890 ( discussing significant potential to employ 
United States workers as indicative of national importance). 
2 
The Petitioner also claims her company will contribute indirectly to the American economy through 
the generation of indirect jobs and payment of taxes. The Petitioner did not specify how her company 
would indirectly generate jobs. In her business plan submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner 
estimated tax payments of seven percent of total costs each month but did not explain how this estimate 
was made or how the percentage compares to tax payments of other similar businesses. In her business 
plan submitted initially, the Petitioner estimated her company would earn a net profit of $21,123 in 
the first year, which would decrease to $4,987 in the third year. In her business plan submitted in 
response to the RFE, the Petitioner includes a chart titled "Table Summary of the Economic, Financial 
and Social Results" which lists $1,036,800 for the first year, increasing to $1,183,389 in the fifth year. 
This business plan does not specify how these amounts were calculated, and the Petitioner does not 
explain the different financial projections between her two business plans. Regardless of any 
discrepancy between the Petitioner's business plans, the Petitioner has not established that her 
company's projected tax payments and net profits would have substantial positive economic effects 
of national importance. See id. (discussing substantial positive economic effects as indicative of 
national importance). 
The Petitioner further asserts her proposed endeavor has national importance because the international 
expansion of business has significant benefits for the United States economy and is aligned with 
government policies aimed at economic expansion and global competitiveness. The Petitioner claims 
her company will be a "crucial vector" for the national economy through the promotion of international 
trade and strengthening of bilateral relations with Brazil. The Petitioner submitted articles on 
international trade and investment, the global management consulting services market, and the 
growing need for companies to internationalize. While these articles discuss the significance of 
international trade and consulting, our assessment of national importance does not focus on the 
importance of a field or industry in general. Instead, 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 her proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner claims her company's transmission of specialized knowledge in the business 
internationalization sector is fundamental to the development of resilient and adaptive business 
strategies and will foster innovation and competitiveness in the global market. The Petitioner does 
not specify the specialized knowledge that her company would impart or indicate that her company 
has or will develop strategies that would extend beyond its clientele to have national or even global 
implications for business internationalization. See id. at 889 ( discussing improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances as examples of national or even global implications within a particular 
field). 
The Petitioner further claims her company's comprehensive training will "enrich the local job market 
with specialized skills and advanced knowledge" and "promote a broader positive economic impact." 
The Petitioner has not shown, however, that her company's training programs would extend beyond 
individual trainees to impact her field more broadly. See id. at 889 ( explaining "we look for broader 
implications"). 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 its clientele to impact business internationalization more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. 
3 
The Petitioner has not established that her 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 her field, or has other broad implications 
demonstrating national importance. 
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
The Petitioner has not established 
the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor and she 
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 her 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 her proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, she has not demonstrated that 
she 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