dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Legal Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 24, 2024 In Re: 32261766 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a legal consultant, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 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 that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she had not 
established 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 on the same basis. The matter is now before us 
on motion to reopen. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
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 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
The Petitioner has consistently stated her intent to establish a Florida-based legal consulting firm that 
will offer services to foreign companies, mainly located in Brazil, seeking to expand their operations 
to the U.S. market, and to U.S. companies seeking to expand their operations to Brazil and Latin 
American countries. She explained that her firm's primary service offerings will include (1) corporate 
business advisory services focused on contracts, permits, and licensing; (2) other legal consulting 
services with an emphasis on tax law; and (3) customs consulting and compliance services related to 
international trade activities. In our previous decision dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, incorporated 
here by reference, we concluded that the record did not establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884,889 (AAO 2016). Because this conclusion was dispositive of the appeal, 
we reserved our opinion as to the remaining Dhanasar prongs. 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits new evidence 1-a brief; an updated "Professional Plan"; 
a "Foreign Legal Consultant" application to the Florida Bar Association, including receipt, dated 
January 2024; a "declaration" indicating that the Petitioner is currently a "student of postgraduation 
course 'lato sensu' in International Immigration Law," expected to end in October 2024; legal and 
financial documents for the Petitioner's businesses registered in Florida and Brazil; and letters of 
recommendation with business plans from existing clients in the U.S. and Brazil. The Petitioner states 
that she has accepted the feedback from U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) and has 
sought to improve, focus, and redirect her work "based on the suggestions and requirements brought 
by this immigration process for its approval." She further states that "these new facts ... are measures 
taken to correct or supplement what [USCIS] requests and expects." The Petitioner appears to be 
referring to the language in our decision in which we noted that she did not offer a sufficient 
evidentiary basis for her assertion that the direct and indirect financial impacts of her proposed 
endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 2 
See id. at 890. 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner does not state new facts, supported by documentary evidence, that 
establish proper cause to reopen the proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i); (a)(2). Although the 
updated professional plan and letters from clients are newly submitted evidence, we conclude they do 
not establish that we erred as to our reason for dismissing the Petitioner's appeal-the lack of national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. See Matter ofCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. at 473 (requiring that new 
evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
The Petitioner described her proposed endeavor in a professional plan and a business plan and updated 
these documents in her responses to a request for evidence (RFE), a notice of intent to deny (NOID), 
and now on motion. In the updated professional plan submitted on motion,3 the Petitioner indicates 
that she has opened two companies to facilitate her work in the proposed endeavor, one in the U.S. 
and one in Brazil. 4 She states that she will "provide business legal consultancy services in general 
from the opening of companies, market studies, contracts, corporate issues and legal issues such as 
licenses required for operation [and will] provide advice on taxes and duties and immigration advice, 
that is, the needs to establish themselves in the country legally." She further indicates that her area of 
activity in the U.S. market-business, tax, and immigration law-represents a portion of the general 
amount ofrevenue and workers in the legal market referenced in our decision, which "clarif[ies] that 
in the correct proportions of [her] company's projection within [her] area of activity combined with 
1 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 We noted that the Petitioner had not shown her endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or that the 
specific proposed endeavor would offer a region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment 
levels, business activity, or related tax revenue; how the indirect economic benefits resulting from her firm's legal 
consulting activities would rise to the level of having regional or national economic impacts; or that her past achievements 
have resulted in a broad impact on the legal field or substantial positive economic impacts. 
3 While we may not discuss every detail stated in the updated professional plan and client documents, we have reviewed 
and considered them in their entirety. 
4 The Petitioner also has a second company in the U.S., which she indicates makes investments in the real estate market 
and "its share capital is made up exclusively of properties [she] own[s] and demonstrate[ s her] solidity and financial 
capacity also in the American market." 
2 
financial and tax collection indirectly, plus the direct and indirect jobs that [her] clients will bring to 
the [U.S.]," her endeavor will rise to the national interest based on the economic impact and the 
generating of new jobs. She then references the letters and supporting business plans from clients to 
demonstrate those clients' direct employment generation and revenue creation. However, this is not 
probative, credible evidence that helps show that the proposed endeavor has the potential to broadly 
impact the legal services industry. For example, the Petitioner has not demonstrated, and the record 
does not establish, that the legal services she will provide to a niche market of Brazilian companies or 
investors will have direct and indirect financial impacts to reach the level of substantial positive 
economic effects. Her updated professional plan and the accompanying information from clients still 
does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate her endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or that the specific proposed endeavor would offer a region or its population a substantial 
economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or related tax revenue. As such, we 
conclude that the Petitioner does not state new facts, supported by documentary evidence, that 
establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, and therefore cause to reopen the 
proceedings. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3