dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Legal Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 25, 2024 In Re: 33380882 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a legal consultant, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although 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. 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 establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner shows: 
1 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 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). 
• 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 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The Petitioner intends to work as an entrepreneur/business consultant in the field of 
legal consulting. 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. 
The Petitioner's initial submission for her company named aimed to focus on two lines 
of service which she summarized as follows: 
"Business Consulting: for Brazilian Companies interested in doing business with or in 
the United States;" and "for U.S. Companies interested in doing business with or in 
Brazil." 
"Customs Consulting: for Brazilian Companies interested in export to the United 
States;" and "for American Companies interested in export to Brazil;" 
The business plan stated: 
At the same time, the customs consulting services will allow companies struggling 
today to access a new consumer market, further strengthening the commercial ties 
between the U.S. and Brazil. In addition, mainly by serving Brazilian suppliers of 
commodities, the Company will be able to help reduce the costs of agricultural and 
mineral products for American buyers. Meanwhile, by serving American suppliers, the 
Company will be able to help reduce the costs of industrialized products for Brazilian 
buyers. 
In addition to her business management experience and team management skills, [the 
Petitioner] has a deep knowledge of Brazilian legislation and the needs and difficulties 
Brazilian exporters face. She also is an expert in the import and export process between 
the U.S. Therefore, [the Petitioner] is highly qualified to coordinate a business that 
offers the necessary services to promote the trade balance between the two countries, 
generating several benefits for their respective companies and economies. 
2 
In addition to the business plan and statement, the Petitioner submitted copies of her academic 
credentials and professional recognition, letters of recommendation, and an article on international 
trade. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit but concluded 
that it did not rise to the level of national importance. The Director observed that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner's consulting business would prospectively translate into benefits that 
would extend beyond her immediate projected business to have national benefits. Thus, the Director 
requested a detailed description of the proposed endeavor and an explanation why it was of national 
importance as well as documentary evidence so that her request for a national interest waiver could be 
evaluated under the Dhanasar framework. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted, in part, a letter, employment letters, another copy of her business 
plan, and letters from potential clients and partners. The Director observed that in the business plan, 
the Petitioner discussed her professional achievements, the services her consulting business would 
provide, and the U.S. and Brazil economic relationship and government interest to demonstrate the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. The Director noted that although the Petitioner claimed 
that her proposed endeavor would generate a total of $9,172,560.00 in gross revenue, a total of 
$8,631,561.00 in net revenue, a total of $4,351,101.00 in payroll expenses, and a total of $633,206.00 
in U.S. taxes, the Petitioner did offer sufficient evidence to support her assertions. Moreover, as the 
Director noted, the record did not show a sufficiently direct connection between the proposed endeavor 
activities and either job creation or tax revenue. The Director determined that the letters from foreign 
investors interested in investing in the U.S. which cited the projected number of jobs their companies 
would create, were not supported by corroborating evidence to support the projected job creation. In 
denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to 
establish the proposed endeavor's national importance. 2 The Director determined that the Petitioner 
had not shown that her proposed endeavor had significant potential to employ U.S. workers, would offer 
substantial positive economic effects for the United States, or that the benefits to the national economy 
resulting from the proposed endeavor would reach a level contemplated by the Dhanasar framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director did not evaluate several vital pieces of evidence and 
made demands that went beyond the guidance of Dhanasar. She asserts her company aims to bring 
long sought after solutions to the United States in the following two areas: attracting foreign 
investment, generating new businesses and, consequently, creating jobs for American workers; and 
facilitating an increase in the volume of commercial transactions between the United States and Latin 
American countries, especially Brazil. She notes that U.S. presidents and government agencies have 
been desirous of solutions such as "nearshoring," while seeking to reduce the U.S. economy's 
dependence on goods produced in China. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's determination that the proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. For the reasons set forth below, however, we concur with the Director's determination that the 
record does not demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance. 
2 The Director declined to address the remaining prongs of the Dhanasar framework concluding that further analysis would 
serve no meaningful purpose. 
3 
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. In Dhanasar, we 
further 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. 
The Petitioner claims that her proposed endeavor has national and global implications. She states as 
follows: 
"I understand that, since the business that I will bring to the U.S. will 
establish their operations in different regions nationwide, and some of them will open 
units in different states . . . it is fair to say that my proposed endeavor will have 
national implications. 
Furthermore, as I will also help American companies become 
multinationals by expanding their businesses to the Brazilian market, increasing their 
revenues, becoming less susceptible to crises, and consequently maintaining a larger 
number of jobs in the U.S., I believe my proposed endeavor has global implications." 
We recognize the value of legal consulting services. However, merely working in an important field 
is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
Similarly, the Petitioner emphasizes the value of legal consulting services instead of focusing on the 
prospective impact of her specific endeavor. The Petitioner discusses the benefits oflegal consulting, 
highlighting how her expertise in Brazil as a "Customs, Business and Tax Attorney are fields of 
extreme geopolitical and economic importance for both countries." However, the Petitioner does not 
point to any corroborating evidence that would directly link her specific endeavor to the overall 
economy's growth. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Throughout the record, the Petitioner points to her background, education, and ex erience in her field. 
This included her time as a legal intern with the Customs Office in Brazil, and then at 
the Attorney General's Office of the National Treasury in ___ Brazil; to her many years as 
an attorney working in her brother's firm and then as a solo practitioner "building an impeccable 
reputation." The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in her field, however, relate to the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that 
she proposes to undertake has national importance under the second consideration of Dhanasar' s first 
prong. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. While 
the evidence indicates that she is an experienced attorney in Brazil who appears to be well-respected 
4 
by her colleagues, working with "professionals of the highest level" and serving "large clients," this 
is more relevant to the second Dhanasar prong regarding whether or not the Petitioner is well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. We also note that while a petitioner's past work and 
achievements may be helpful in illustrating how they plan to carry out their proposed endeavor or its 
potential prospective impact, the focus of the first prong is on the proposed endeavor itself and not the 
petitioner. See id. at 889. 
The Petitioner submitted letters from foreign investors and cited the projected number of jobs their 
companies would create. The Director noted that although they discussed their interest in investing in 
the U.S., the letters were not supported by other corroborating evidence to support their projected job 
creation. On appeal the Petitioner acknowledges that the letters from the investors do not corroborate 
the projections in her business plan. She explains that the intention of the letters was to "demonstrate 
the potential success of the business since, at the time of sending the are RFE Response, I already had 
potential clients interested in hiring the company's services." Regardless, these letters from the 
Petitioner's investors are applicable to the second prong rather than the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Although the Petitioner recounts 
the value and importance of law and legal services and their general impact on business growth, and 
"seeks to bring investors to the U.S. and promote confidence in commercial transactions between 
Brazilian and U.S. companies navigating through different legal, tax, and commercial systems," 
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 in which the individual will work. 
Id. at 889. 
While the Petitioner claims the "business consulting services offered to Brazilian and American 
companies will help them to overcome barriers imposed by language, different culture, and different 
legislation from both countries," her objectives simply describe the typical occupational duties of a 
legal and business consultant rather than establishing that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor 
has national importance. 3 Additionally, other than listing these objectives, the Petitioner's 
professional plans do not provide further specific details as to how these objectives would be 
accomplished. The Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide valuable legal consulting 
services for her clients or employers, but she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. 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. See id. at 
893. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
3 In determining national importance, the analysis focuses on what the petitioner will be doing rather than the specific 
occupational classification. For instance, although the petitioner in Matter ofDhanasar was an engineer by occupation, 
the decision discusses his specific proposed endeavor "to engage in research and development relating to air and space 
propulsion systems, as well as to teach aerospace engineering." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l) , 
http://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual; see also Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 891. 
5 
extend beyond her employers or clients to impact her field, the legal and business sectors, or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance . 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S . workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. Although her busines s plan includes financial calculations such as financial 
forecasts and salary projections for the first five years of operation s, general assertions about her 
company's potential impact are not supported in the record by corroborating evidence of the 
plausibility of those assertions , and a lack of detail concerning her proposal makes it difficult to discern 
how the Petitioner's endeavor differs from that of others in the field who operate legal consulting firms 
in the United States. The Petitioner argues that the "decision may have been generated by a 
misinterpretation since even mentioning . . . the positive economic implications and recognizing the 
use of methodology of the Economic Policy Institute of the U.S . Government, the [Director] states: 
her business plan references employment information from the Economic Policy Institute . . . 
however, the claims made in the business plan are not supported by objective corroborating evidence, 
nor does the plan indicate the occupations these new jobs will affect or the area where these new jobs 
will be created." On appeal, the Petitioner argues that her use of the formula provided by the Economic 
Policy Institute already supports the projections with objective corroborating evidence, Dhanasar does 
not require petitioners to indicate exactly what occupations the jobs created will be and her projections 
do not demonstrate the positive impact caused to Americans or businesses , but rather the American 
economy , population and government by providing work that tends to promote the achievement of the 
country's national goals. However , the Petitioner intends to work as a legal consultant, yet she submits 
employment multiplier tables which do not show legal consultancy as a field. The tables do show the 
broad category of "management of companies." Thus, the multipliers apply to broad categories of 
businesses, rather than to the Petitioner's specific endeavor. General statistics do not illustrate why 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor qualifies her for an exemption from the statutory job offer 
requirement. Again, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the field, industry , or profession in which the individual will work; instead USCIS must focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 
889. 
Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy 
resulting from the Petitioner's legal consulting services would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, the Petitione r' s proposed work 
does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding her eligibility under the remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. 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 ofL-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). 
6 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7