dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Legal Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 18, 2024 In Re: 29356303 
Appeal of Texas Service Center 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 that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 
203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that, although the Petitioner 
demonstrated her eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, she did not 
establish that a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement 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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. See section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is considered the equivalent 
of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations 
define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion1, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Accordingly, the sole issue to be addressed 
on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of job offer requirement, and thus a 
labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner demonstrated the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor 
and that she is well-positioned to advance it. However, the Director determined that the record did 
not demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance, and that, on balance, it would benefit 
the United States to waive the job offer requirement. 
For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework and therefore has not established that she merits, as a matter of discretion, a national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement. While we do not discuss all evidentiary exhibits 
individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner has a bachelor's degree in law and completed a postgraduate specialization in tax law. 
The record reflects that she worked as a lawyer in Brazil, specializing in tax, civil, business, and 
environmental law, for approximately 15 years prior to coming to the United States. 
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) and a notice of intent to deny 
(NOID). The Petitioner has consistently stated her intent to establish a Florida-based legal consulting 
firm that will offer services to foreign companies 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 
explains 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. 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor, 
but not its national importance. Specifically, the Director concluded that the record contained 
insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor would have substantial positive 
economic effects, broader implications for the Petitioner's field, or other potential impacts 
commensurate with the national importance element of Dhansar's first prong. The Director 
acknowledged evidence establishing the importance of the legal services industry, but noted that, in 
determining national importance, the relevant focus is not on the industry, field or profession in which 
the individual will work, but rather on the specific endeavor they propose to undertake. The Director 
also recognized the Petitioner's submission of evidence related to her past work in the field but 
emphasized that her professional experience and achievements are relevant under Dhanasar's second 
prong and do not demonstrate how the proposed endeavor will be of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director's decision contains "erroneous conclusions of both 
law and fact" and is "not in accordance with the evidence provided or with the adjudicatory framework 
established by Dhanasar." The Petitioner asserts that the Director mischaracterized the relevance of 
letters provided by her past and present clients, noting that such letters contain examples of the 
"positive and national impact" of her work and are therefore relevant to her eligibility under the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. She maintains that the record demonstrates, by a preponderance 
of the evidence, that her proposed endeavor has both substantial prospective economic benefits and 
broader implications in her field. 
The record includes media articles, government publications, and industry reports on the topics of the 
legal profession, the legal services industry in the United States, and the demand for skilled 
professionals in this field. In addition, the Petitioner provided articles and reports discussing the role 
of entrepreneurship in job creation and economic development, U.S.-Brazil economic and trade 
relations, the financial- and tax-related complexities of doing business in Brazil and Latin America, 
and the economic benefits of international trade and foreign direct investment in the United States. 
This evidence supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to provide 
legal services to domestic and foreign businesses has substantial merit. 
However, in evaluating national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake" and its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. General claims about the growth of the legal services industry and the importance of 
trade between the United States and Brazil do not help establish that the Petitioner's specific endeavor 
has the potential to impact the U.S. economy, trade relations, or the legal field on a scale commensurate 
with national importance. Therefore, while we recognize the role of legal consultants in assisting 
businesses to enter new markets, minimize risks, and maximize their profitability, the Petitioner's 
3 
intent to work in this field alone is not sufficient to establish the national importance of her specific 
proposed endeavor. 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that is 
regionally focused may nevertheless have national importance, such as an endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. Id. at 890. As noted by the Director in the RFE and NOID, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigrant Services (USCIS) will also consider evidence that a proposed endeavor 
will broadly enhance societal welfare, and evidence that it impacts a matter than a U.S. government 
entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives. 
As noted, the Petitioner provided a business plan that includes industry and market analyses, financial 
forecasts and projections, and a description of her legal consulting firm's proposed services and 
staffing. The business plan projects that the firm, which she intends to establish if granted lawful 
permanent residence in the United States, would hire 20 employees in the first five years of operations, 
generate cumulative revenues of $9.4 million, and pay over $930,000 in taxes by the end of its fifth 
year. The business plan also includes projections of indirect job creation based on a national job 
multiplier published by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) for the "professional, technical and 
scientific services industry." Based on this multiplier, the business plan projects that the new firm's 
direct employment of 20 workers over five years would lead to the indirect creation of 83 additional 
jobs. 
These direct job creation and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis or 
a sufficient explanation of how they will be realized. Regardless, the record does not support that the 
direct creation of 20 additional jobs in this sector or the expected tax revenue generated by the 
company will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the national importance element 
of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's claims 
regarding indirect job creation attributed to her hiring plan, we note that the cited EPI figures are 
general statistics that apply to the broad industry sectors of "professional, scientific and technical 
services," rather than specifically to her proposed endeavor to establish a small legal consulting firm. 
Therefore, while the Petitioner submitted industry data showing that the legal services industry is a 
high growth sector and a significant contributor to the U.S. economy, she has not demonstrated how a 
business that expects to hire 20 employees and generate $9 million over five years will have substantial 
positive economic effects on this sector, which, according to a submitted overview of the industry, 
generates over $300 billion in revenue and employs over 1.1 million workers. The Petitioner has 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. 
The Petitioner maintains that the economic impact of her proposed endeavor will derive not only from 
her direct employment of U.S. workers and contributions of tax revenue to the U.S. economy. She 
contends that her proposed activities will also have significant indirect benefits resulting from the 
4 
creation of new businesses in the United States, increased trade between the United States and Brazil, 
and creation of new revenue streams for existing U.S. companies. The Petitioner also states in her 
business plan that her proposed endeavor will result in widespread and substantial economic benefits 
throughout the United States, as it will spur job creation, increased tax revenues, a stronger supply 
chain, increased foreign direct investment, GDP growth, and national economic development. 
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 any increased 
business activity has the potential to positively impact the economy on some level, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated 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. The burden is on 
the Petitioner to establish that the economic effects of her proposed endeavor are "substantial." 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner's updated business plan, submitted in response to the Director's 
NOID, included a section on "potential direct and indirect jobs from the client base in Brazil." The 
business plan indicates that four of the Petitioner's current and former Brazilian clients intend to invest 
in U.S. expansion activities and, collectively, have the potential to create 1,850 direct and 3,880 
indirect jobs once established in the U.S. market. However, while the Petitioner submitted letters from 
three of these clients, those letters do not address the companies' projected U.S. expansion activities 
in any detail or otherwise corroborate or provide support for the job creation projections the Petitioner 
incorporated in her firm's latest business plan. 
In considering the prospective economic effects of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, we have also 
considered her claims regarding her past achievements as a lawyer and legal consultant. As noted by 
the Director, evidence of a petitioner's skills, expertise, and record of success generally relates to the 
second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the 
[petitioner]" and whether they are well-positioned to advance it. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. A 
determination regarding the claimed national importance of a specific proposed endeavor generally 
cannot be inferred based on the Petitioner's past achievements, just as it cannot be inferred based on 
general claims about the importance of a given field or industry. Nevertheless, a petitioner's 
achievements in the field may be relevant in some circumstances in establishing the potential 
prospective impact of their endeavor. See id. 
The Petitioner submitted letters from her clients, who describe the specific services she provided and 
the positive impact of her work on their companies' revenue and growth. For example, R-C-, who 
operates nine franchised pet stores in the United States, states that the Petitioner provided him with 
legal advice that allowed him to avoid layoffs, store closures, and other potential losses during the 
Covid-19 pandemic. It is evident that the Petitioner's legal consulting services have been of significant 
value to the clients who provided references on her behalf. Some of these client reference letters 
contain general statements about the broader impacts of the Petitioner's work, but those assertions are 
less persuasive. In fact, many of the letters contain identical language when discussing the wide­
ranging economic impacts of the Petitioner's activities, which undermines their probative value. 2 
2 For example, several of the submitted client letters state that the Petitioner's "professional performance generates a 
solution for us entrepreneurs, turning the commercial wheel, and consequently, generating income for the American 
5 
Because the Petitioner does not describe - and the record does not contain sufficient probative evidence 
of - past achievements that have resulted in a broad impact on the legal field or substantial positive 
economic impacts, the Petitioner's general statements that her past achievements demonstrate the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor are insufficient to meet her burden of proof 
For all the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner does 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. See id. at 890. 
We have also considered the Petitioner's claims that her endeavor will have broader implications in 
the legal services industry and will improve the quality oflegal services available in the United States. 
The Petitioner states in her business plan that she practices "Thought Leadership" and will share her 
knowledge with her company's employees, as well as "other professionals, clients, schools, local 
communities, [and] young graduates." She claims that her services will therefore reach "the highest 
levels of ... dissemination." The Petitioner also asserts that by setting a high standard of service, she 
will "inspire other legal professionals to improve their own services, which can contribute to an overall 
improvement of legal services." Beyond these general statements, the Petitioner has not elaborated 
on her plans to disseminate her knowledge, skills, or methodologies for offering consulting services 
at a level that would have broader implications in the field. While the record supports a determination 
that the Petitioner is an experienced and successful lawyer and legal consultant, it does not offer 
sufficient corroboration for her claims that her proposed endeavor will provide a platform to influence 
the field, or otherwise have broader implications in the field commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided an expert opinion letter from a university 
professor in her field. In addressing the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the author discusses 
the Brazilian economy and explains the current market challenges for foreign companies doing 
business in Brazil. The letter states that U.S. companies doing business or planning to do business in 
Brazil "would benefit from the expertise and skills" of the Petitioner, who has "extensive knowledge 
of the business environment and legal landscape in Brazil." The professor concludes that the 
Petitioner's work would be in an area of substantial merit and national importance, but does not 
address her business plan, the specific proposed endeavor, and its prospective potential impact. 
Rather, most of the letter's discussion of the first prong of the Dhanasar analysis simply provides 
background information about Brazil's economy, business, and trade environments. 
We observe that users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, 
professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of 
Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r. 1988). However, users is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of 
D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) ( discussing the varying weight that may be given expert 
testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much of the content 
government." Identical language in letters "suggests that the letters were all prepared by the same person and calls into 
question the persuasive value of the letters' content." Hamal v. US. Dep 't ofHomeland Security, No. 19-2534, slip op. at 
8, n.3 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021). 
6 
of the expert opm10n letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not met her burden to establish that she meets the first 
prong of the Dhanasar national interest framework. Although the Director also concluded that the 
Petitioner had not established her eligibility under the third prong of the Dhanasar framework, detailed 
discussion of the remaining prong cannot change the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve 
that issue and will dismiss the appeal as a matter of discretion. 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 the applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7