dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Legal Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 21, 2025 In Re: 36247776 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office 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. 
§ 1 l 53(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. 
§ l 153(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 the Petitioner did not 
establish her eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. The Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not show that a waiver of the 
required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed 
a subsequent appeal. The Petitioner then filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider, which we 
dismissed. The matter is again before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
In our appellate decision, we acknowledged that the Petitioner's Brazilian "Bachelor of Laws" 
diploma, underlying school record, and academic evaluation demonstrated that she has a 
foreign-equivalent bachelor's degree. However, we determined that the Petitioner's evidence did not 
support a finding that at the time she filed the petition, she had "a United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the 
specialty." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). We observed deficiencies in the experience letters she 
provided, noting that the letters from the claimed employers lacked specific dates and descriptions of 
the work done by or with her and lacked supporting evidence of the ongoing nature of her own business 
during the relevant time period. 1 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that the documentation previously submitted establishes her 
eligibility as an advanced degree professional. However, we previously determined that the reference 
letters from her former employers and colleagues did not collectively demonstrate the required five 
years of qualifying experience. Specifically, we noted that the letters from the Petitioner's claimed 
employers lacked specific dates and descriptions of the work done by or with her, and we further 
determined that the remaining letters were from colleagues, not from former employers as required, 
and therefore were afforded limited evidentiary weight. In addition, we noted several inconsistencies 
between the information contained in the letters and the Petitioner's own statements regarding her 
employment history, which cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence. See Matter 
ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). On motion, the Petitioner does not submit any new evidence 
and does not assert any new facts supported by documentary evidence that establish her eligibility as 
an advanced degree professional or otherwise refute our determination to the contrary. 
Regarding the Petitioner's assertion on motion that she alternatively qualifies as an individual of 
exceptional ability, we again decline to consider this assertion. As noted initially in our appellate 
decision, the Petitioner sought classification below only as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, and did not assert eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability prior to 
adjudication. As the Director did not address whether she established EB-2 classification eligibility 
as an individual of exceptional ability, we did not consider the Petitioner's assertions as to exceptional 
ability raised before us for the first time on appeal, and will not consider them here. See Matter of 
J-Y-C-, 24 I&N Dec. 260, 261 n.l (BIA 2007) (noting that matters not raised previously are waived 
on appeal). 
In our previous decision, we also affirmed our prior determination that the Petitioner did not 
sufficiently demonstrate that her proposed endeavor in the United States will likely have national 
importance. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). We determined that the 
evidence submitted on motion, including publications from sources such as Trading Economics, 
CASTUS Global, Euronews, White & Case, Global Expansion, and the Indiana University Maurer 
School of Law, provided only generalized information regarding legal services and business. We 
further determined that the Petitioner's submission of publications from the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, the Brazilian Bar Association, and information regarding Brazilian academics from the 
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions provided only generalized information 
1 Because we determined in our most recent decision that the Petitioner had not satisfied the first prong of the framework 
outlined in Matter of Dhanasar. 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), and thus had not demonstrated eligibility for a national 
interest waiver, we declined to reach and reserved the Petitioner's assertions concerning her eligibility for the underlying 
EB-2 classification. INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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). 
2 
regarding the Brazilian market and the legal profession. Upon review of all the submitted evidence, 
we concluded that none of the documentation submitted addressed the specific endeavor the Petitioner 
proposed to undertake or how the endeavor may have national or even global implications within a 
particular field. See id. at 889-90. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits numerous articles and publications in support of the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor. For example, the record includes a copy of the Brazil Country 
Commercial Guide published by the International Trade Administration, articles pertaining to 
Brazilian investment abroad and foreign investment in Latin America, and articles regarding the 
benefits of entrepreneurship and the contributions of foreign legal consultants. In addition to this new 
evidence, the Petitioner again highlights previously submitted evidence and asserts that she has 
demonstrated that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
The Petitioner, who has worked as a lawyer in Brazil, intends to work as the managing partner of her 
consulting firm where she will advise U.S. companies seeking to enter the Brazilian market on the 
legal requirements, financial planning, and cross-border business expansion. Despite the submission 
of additional documentary evidence on motion, the record does not support the Petitioner's claim that 
her proposed endeavor will have broader implications for the consulting services industry, U.S. 
economy, and international trade. As previously noted, the Petitioner's business plan was not 
supported by independent evidence that corroborated her staffing projections or financial projections, 
and the record does not contain specific, probative evidence that her proposed endeavor will have 
broader implications in her field, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or have other 
substantial positive economic effects. 
We recognize the importance of the legal industry and related careers as well as the positive effects 
foreign investment can have for U.S. businesses. However, merely working in the legal field or 
starting a legal consulting services business focusing on cross-border transactions is insufficient to 
establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. Although the articles and 
reports submitted on motion discuss the economic benefits of legal services, entrepreneurship, and the 
value of foreign investments and transactions, they do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact 
or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The Petitioner does not 
demonstrate that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her future clients or employers to impact the 
field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. The Petitioner's submissions on motion to reopen, therefore, have not demonstrated that 
her proposed endeavor will likely reach the level of national importance. 
For the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in 
dismissing the prior motion. Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant 
reopening of the proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
3 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's previous motion to reconsider on the basis that it did not provide reasons 
for reconsideration that were supported by citations to appropriate statutes, regulations, or precedent 
decisions, and it did not show that our decision dismissing the appeal was incorrect based on the 
evidence of record at the time of the decision. 
Regarding her eligibility for classification as an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner claims 
that we erred in not providing a thorough analysis of the employer and colleague letters submitted in 
support of the assertion that she possesses the requisite five years of post-baccalaureate experience. 
As noted previously, we reserved this issue in our prior decision because the Petitioner had not 
satisfied the first prong of the Dhanasar framework and thus had not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. However, our appellate decision thoroughly analyzed the contents of each 
letter, articulating deficiencies and noting unresolved discrepancies in the Petitioner's claimed 
employment history. On motion, the Petitioner does not claim that our previous decision dismissing 
the motion to reconsider was based on an incorrect application of law or policy or that it was incorrect 
based on the evidence in the record at the time of our decision. Her statement in support of the motion 
does not point to any factual, legal or policy error in our prior decision. 
Additionally, while the Petitioner continues to assert that her proposed endeavor has national 
importance, she does not specifically identify an instance in which we incorrectly applied the law or 
USCIS policy in arriving at our latest decision. On motion, she continues to primarily rely on the 
importance of both the legal industry and foreign investment and their collective impact on the U.S. 
economy; however, we previously addressed those claims in both of our prior decisions. In our first 
appellate decision we explained that the importance of these industries did not establish the national 
importance of her specific endeavor. And again, in our dismissal of her first motion to reconsider, we 
acknowledged these claims, but explained that because the Petitioner had not addressed our prior 
determinations regarding these claims and essentially submitted the same brief she submitted on 
appeal, she did not show that we erred in dismissing her appeal. We also observed that the record did 
not contain sufficient support for the hiring and financial projections set forth in her business plan or 
otherwise demonstrate a significant potential to employ workers, and further noted that the Petitioner's 
generalized assertions indicated that the endeavor would be similar to other legal services consulting 
businesses. 
In the current motion, the Petitioner reiterates the same claims regarding her proposed endeavor and 
its economic benefits without addressing our determination that the record did not demonstrate that 
her proposed endeavor may have broader implications for the consulting services industry, U.S. 
economy, and international trade beyond her business and potential clientele as contemplated by the 
first Dhanasarprong. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Beyond generally disagreeing 
with our conclusions, the Petitioner does not explain how our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Instead, the Petitioner's 
contentions merely reargue facts and issues we considered in our prior decision. See, e.g., Matter of 
O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party 
4 
may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally 
alleging error in the prior Board decision"). 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that we erred as a matter of 
law or policy. Consequently, we have no basis for reconsideration of our decision, and the motion to 
reconsider will be dismissed. 
In conclusion, although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of her motion to 
reopen, she has not established new facts relevant to our previous decision that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings. Additionally, on motion to reconsider, she has not demonstrated that 
our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy or that our previous 
decision was incorrect based on evidence in the record at the time we issued the decision. Because 
the combined motions do not overcome the issues of whether the Petitioner merits classification as an 
advanced degree professional under section 203(b )(2) of the Act or whether the proposed endeavor 
has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong, we again reserve the issues of 
whether the record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar prongs because they would be unnecessary 
to the ultimate decision. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are 
not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
decision); 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). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5