dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Legal Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 29, 2024 In Re: 29847939 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a legal analyst and entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant 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. § 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver. 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 I&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. 
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." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar , 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCTS 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; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The record supports that determination. 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 Petitioner intends to expand his current business providing law consultancy services in Florida. 
He intends to proffer advisory services to U.S. and Brazilian businesses in order to promote economic 
development through various channels. 
The first prong, 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 T&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's endeavor to provide consultancy services and contribute 
to the U.S. economy has substantial merit. The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did 
not sufficiently demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has national importance. The Director 
examined the business plan and laid out its nature and scope, its personnel projections, and its financial 
forecasts, ultimately determining that its anticipated economic impact would not reach the level of 
"substantial economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The Director added that, in 
order to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. In 
addition to the endeavor's limited prospective economic effects, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that his business would enhance social welfare beyond that of his 
company's success and its potential clients. 
In addition, while the Petitioner cited shortages of "business professionals" in the United States, the 
Director pointed out that the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession 
in which the individual will work. The relevant question, rather, lies in "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. The Director explained that the necessary 
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 unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
consideration is the broader implications of the proposed endeavor and how it may have national 
importance, for example, because it has national or even global implications in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that USCIS "erroneously denied" the petition and "imposed novel 
substantive and evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations." The Petitioner, 
however, does not identify any unusual requirements imposed, nor does the Petitioner specify how the 
Director erred or what factors in the decision were erroneous. An appeal must specifically identify 
any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(a)(l)(v). The Petitioner also contends, without farther explanation, that the Director "did not 
give due regard" to the evidence submitted and applied a stricter standard of proof than that of 
preponderance of the evidence. See INS v. Cardoza-Foncesca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987) (discussing 
"more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance of an occurrence taking place). Again, the 
Petitioner has not elaborated the basis of his appeal beyond statements disagreeing with the Director's 
decision and reiterating previous claims of eligibility based on the previous evidence submitted. 
While the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide consultancy services for his business 
clients, he has not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. The Petitioner's statements 
and business plan outline generalized descriptions of the legal consultancy services that the Petitioner 
intends to provide, and the articles and industry reports do not include insight into how any specific 
endeavor proposed by the Petitioner is one that rises to a 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. Id. at 893. Here, we conclude the 
record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his 
company and its clientele to impact the legal consulting field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is one of national importance as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments 
concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3