dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Legal Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 08, 2023 In Re: 28819049 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the legal services industry, 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. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner demonstrated her eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification but did not establish that 
a discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, 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 an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2) 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." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 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 discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• 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 EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree and the record supports this conclusion. 2 Therefore, the sole 
issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that she merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
In denying the petition, the Director addressed all three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework 
and concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she meets any of them. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director did not objectively evaluate all the submitted evidence under the 
preponderance of the evidence standard. For the reasons provided below, we agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner has not met her burden to demonstrate the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
Although the Petitioner indicated on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, that she 
intends to work as a "Paralegal and Legal Assistant" in the United States, she submitted a professional 
plan indicating that she is self-petitioning as an entrepreneur and plans to open her own legal 
consultancy business in the United States. 
Subsequently, in response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an updated 
"definitive statement" and indicated her intent to establish and manage a legal consulting business in 
Massachusetts. She stated that her firm "will specialize in supporting U.S. companies by providing 
Legal Advisory, Paralegal Services, Legal Advisory for Business Contracts, and Legal Advisory 
Packages on Business Contracts in the U.S. market." The submitted business plan for the proposed 
endeavor includes industry and market analyses, financial forecasts and projections, and a description 
of the firm's proposed service offerings and personnel. With respect to future staffing, the business 
plan projects that the Petitioner's new firm would hire 41 employees in the first five years of 
operations, pay over $513,000 in income taxes, and achieve cumulative revenues of $12.8 million by 
the end of its fifth year. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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, 
2 The Petitioner provided an official academic record from a Brazilian university and an evaluation of her academic 
credentials indicating that she holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in law. She also submitted letters 
from prior employers documenting that she has more than five years of progressive post-baccalaureate work experience in 
the legal field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "advanced degree"). 
2 
health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
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 international businesses has substantial merit. 
However, in determining 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. Therefore, while we recognize the role oflegal consultants in assisting 
businesses to maximize profitability, the Petitioner's intent to work in this field alone is not sufficient 
to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, we emphasized that "we 
look for broader implications" of the specific proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n undertaking may have 
national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular 
field." 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor will have a substantial economic effect on 
underserved and underutilized regional economies, noting that her firm's headquarters and four future 
branch locations would all be located in areas of Massachusetts the U.S. Small Business 
Administration has designated as "HUBZones." 3 The Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence 
that her business, which had not yet been incorporated or secured physical premises, will have offices 
in one or more HUBZones. Further, she explicitly stated that her proposed endeavor would not 
participate in the HUBZone program and would not be eligible to do so. It appears the Petitioner may 
have intended to equate a designated HUBZone with an "economically depressed area," but the record 
does not support a conclusion that this is an equitable comparison. While the business plan projects 
the firm's employment of up to 41 workers at five locations within five years, the Petitioner has not 
established that this addition to the workforce in any of the claimed HUBZone regions would be of 
sufficient significance to rise to the level of national importance. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner broadly maintains that her proposed endeavor will not only directly employ 
U.S. workers and contribute tax revenue to the U.S. economy but will also "have multiple positive 
3 Under the HUBZone program, the U.S. government seeks to fuel small business growth in historically underutilized 
business zones, with a goal of annually awarding at least 3% of federal contract dollars to HUBZone-certified companies 
annually. See "HUBZone Program," https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistanceprograms/hubzone­
program. 
3 
effects on the U.S. marketplace, thus enhancing business operations on behalf of the nation and 
contributing to a streamlined economic landscape." She farther asserts that the services her company 
provides will generate "substantial ripple effects upon key legal activities," will be "a vital aspect of 
U.S. legal operations and productivity," and will contribute to "a revenue-enhanced business 
ecosystem." These statements mirror her earlier claims that she is "due to play a key role in the United 
States' economic recovery," and that her work will "enhance revenues for the U.S. economy at large." 
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, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how the economic activity resulting from her business 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." She did not provide specific plans, projections of 
indirect economic benefits, or other sufficient evidence to explain how her company's activities will 
have broader implications in the field that rise to the level of national importance or that its activities 
would impact the field beyond the company and its clients. Therefore, despite her claims that her 
proposed activities will result in a "streamlined economic landscape" throughout the United States, 
the Petitioner does not offer an evidentiary basis for her assertion that the "ripple effects" of her 
proposed endeavor would have such far-reaching results or would otherwise reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. at 890. 
In her personal statements and appellate brief, the Petitioner has placed considerable emphasis on her 
academic qualifications, professional experience, and the fact that she is well-versed in the legal and 
business environments in Brazil. The record contains ample supporting documentation of her 
academic qualifications and employment experience including letters from her colleagues and partners 
that praise her abilities and expertise in the fields of law and business. While important, the 
Petitioner's expertise acquired through her academic and professional career relates to the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." Id. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake 
has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 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. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided an expert opinion letter from a university 
professor in the marketing 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 as she has "an 
exceptional track record in business and commerce in the legal and customer service industries 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. 
4 
We observe that USCIS 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'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS 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 
of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
While the Petitioner's evidence shows how her proposed endeavor stands to positively impact her 
business clients, it does not demonstrate how the endeavor will have a broader impact consistent with 
national importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor meets 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve her remaining arguments concerning her eligibility under the remaining prongs of 
the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reach"); 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 
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 reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5