dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Legal Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 10, 2024 In Re: 34610558 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office 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 the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate her eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. We dismissed a subsequent 
appeal. The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to 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 
combined motion. 
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 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
We incorporate by reference our prior analysis in the appeal decision. By way of summation, the 
Petitioner proposes to found a startup legal services consulting company based in I I Florida, 
employing 13 individuals-including herself-within the first five years of operations. We concluded 
that the record does not establish the proposed endeavor will have national importance, as required by 
the first prong of the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions outlined in Matter 
ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). More specifically, we observed that the record does not 
establish how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor may "have the broader implications for the 
consulting services industry, U.S. economy, and international trade as she claims, beyond her business 
and potential clientele." We also noted that neither the business plan the Petitioner submitted nor the 
remainder of the record "include[ s] any evidence-based justifications for the staffing projections and 
need to employ additional employees, and thus does not demonstrate a significant potential to employ 
workers." Relatedly, "the record lacks corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate 
[financial] projections, such as underlying independent basis for the firm's claimed net worth and the 
source of the claimed sales and revenue." Based on those issues, we concluded that the record does 
not establish the proposed endeavor will have national importance. 
We reserved 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). We 
also agreed with the Director's conclusion that the record does not establish the Petitioner qualifies as 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits various publications, published by Trading Economics, 
CASTUS Global, Euronews, White & Case, Global Expansion, and the Indiana University Maurer 
School of Law, providing generalized information regarding legals services and business. The 
Petitioner also submits a publication from the U.S. Department of Commerce providing generalized 
information regarding the Brazilian market; information from the Brazilian Bar Association-both in 
general and particular to I I providing generalized information regarding the legal profession 
in Brazil; and information regarding Brazilian academics from American Association of Collegiate 
Registrars and Admissions. 
None of the media and publications and other information the Petitioner submits as supporting 
documentary evidence on motion to reopen address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor she proposes 
to undertake, and how the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake may have national or even 
global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or other 
substantial positive economic effects. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Therefore, 
the media publications and other information the Petitioner submits on motion to reopen are 
immaterial to the issue of whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have 
national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner does not otherwise 
provide documentary evidence to support a new fact asserted on motion to reopen material to the issue 
of whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance, which is dispositive. Therefore, we 
will dismiss the motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (4). 
Next, 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 at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § l 03.5(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. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner submits, in essence, the same brief she submitted on appeal, 
containing many passages-including entire paragraphs-of verbatim text, generally alleging error in 
our prior decision. A motion to reconsider is not a process by which a petitioner may submit, in 
essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the 
prior decision. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). More specifically, the 
Petitioner generally reasserts on motion to reconsider that both our prior decision and the Director's 
2 
underlying decision improperly "equate[ d] the lack of geographical implication and the lack of 
potential to employ U.S. workers as failure to show national importance," contrary to Matter of 
Dhanasar. The Petitioner also reiterates generalized assertions already in the record, such as that the 
proposed endeavor "will increase U.S. economy [and] assist in the development and implementation 
of customized plans to maximize long-term results and enable goal achievement." More specifically, 
the Petitioner asserts on motion to reconsider that we "violat[ ed] regulation and expressed, binding 
[U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] policy. (see 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(iv); related 
USCrS Policy Memo PM-602-0085 (June 3, 2015). Section B). 
We first note that, contrary to the Petitioner's reassertions on motion to reconsider, we did not limit 
our analysis to the proposed endeavor's geographical implications. Rather, as noted above, we 
explained that the record does not establish how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor may "have the 
broader implications for the consulting services industry, U.S. economy, and international trade as she 
claims, beyond her business and potential clientele," as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. 
See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 r&N Dec. at 889-90. We also observed that the record does not contain 
"evidence-based justifications for the staffing projections and need to employ additional employees, 
and thus does not demonstrate a significant potential to employ workers." See id. We further 
addressed that the record does not substantiate the Petitioner's generalized and uncorroborated 
assertions about the proposed endeavor's potential economic effects, which she repeats on motion to 
reconsider. Rather than elaborating on how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake 
may have national or even global implications within the field of legal services consulting, or any 
other field, the Petitioner's generalized assertions indicate that the endeavor would be similar to other, 
typical legal services consulting businesses. See id. 
We next note that the federal regulation the Petitioner asserts on motion to reconsider that we 
misapplied has no relevance to our underlying decision. The federal regulation the Petitioner 
addresses on motion to reconsider describes the process for requesting evidence or notifying a 
petitioner of intent to deny, including the maximum response period for such notices. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(8)(iv). That federal regulation is separate from the regulation addressing administrative 
appeals, and decisions thereupon, 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. Because we did not-nor were we required to­
send the Petitioner a notice contemplated at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8)(iv), its requirements are 
inapplicable to our decision to dismiss the appeal. 
In tum, the Petitioner provides a citation for a USCIS policy memorandum she describes as "USCIS 
Policy Memo PM-602-0085 (June 3, 2015). Section B." The Petitioner appears to reference a former 
2013-not 2015-policy memorandum addressing the role of requests for evidence and notices of 
intent to deny benefit requests. See USCIS Policy Memorandum, Requests for Evidence and Notices 
of Intent to Deny, PM-602-0085 (June 3, 2013), http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy­
memoranda. However, USCrS rescinded PM-602-0085 in 2018. See USCrS Policy Memorandum, 
Issuance of Certain RFEs and NOIDs; Revisions to Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 
10.S(a), Chapter 10.S(b), PM-602-0163 (July 13, 2018), http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy­
memoranda. Because users rescinded PM-602-0085 in 2018, before the Petitioner filed the 
underlying Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner's references to it on 
motion to reconsider have no bearing on this matter. 
3 
Because the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision, the motion to reconsider will be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3)-(4). 
Because the combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider does not overcome the issue of 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong, 
which is dispositive, we reserve the issues of whether the record satisfies the second and third 
Dhanasar prongs, and whether the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act; Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; Matter ofL-A-C-, 
26 T&N Dec. at 526 n. 7; Matter ofDhanasar 26 T&N Dec. at 889-90. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4