dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Tax Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 12, 2023 In Re: 28792783 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an attorney and tax law specialist, 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. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that, although the Petitioner 
qualifies for the underlying classification, the evidence did not establish the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor and that a waiver of the requirement of a 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&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, under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate 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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 
2016), provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 
grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 2 
IL ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree in law from a Colombian university in 2019 and later 
completed a one-year post-graduate program in tax law at the same university. According to the 
Petitioner's resume, after earning her bachelor's degree she worked as an associate in tax litigation 
withl I(April 2020 until September 2021) and a legal and commercial 
advisor withl I(beginning in September 2021 ), a company that sells 
oxygen therapy equipment. The Petitioner entered the United States in August 2021 as a B-2 
nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure and filed this petition in August 2022. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Therefore, the primary issue before us 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. 3 
The frrst 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, 
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 Director concluded 
that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. However, for the reasons 
discussed below, the Director determined , and we agree, that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 4 
The Petitioner did not identify her proposed occupation on the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Workers. Within the initial submission, the Petitioner, through counsel, indicated that she intends to work 
as a legal and tax consultant in the United States, "particularly in situations involving Development, 
consulting, and training pertaining to legal analysis applied to international trade and investment." In 
support of her claim that she can satisfy the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, the 
Petitioner provided recommendation letters from colleagues. She also provided copies of articles from 
business, industry, and government publications, discussing the international trade specialist occupation, 
the management analyst occupation, the benefits of international trade, the mission of the Office of the 
U.S. Trade Representative, and the impact of trade on U.S and state-level employment. 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91 , for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 Because we agree with the Director 's conclusion regarding the Petitioner 's eligibility for a national interest waiver, we 
reserve the issue of her eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification. See INS v Bagarnasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 
25 (197 6) ("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 ofL-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 note that the submitted credentials evaluation concludes that 
she attained the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in legal studies in 2019, and it is, therefore, not possible for 
her to have completed five years of post-baccalaureate work experience prior to the filing of her petition in August 2022, 
as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) . 
4 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director observed that the Petitioner did not provide specific insight 
as to what she intends to do in the United States, and requested a detailed description of the proposed 
endeavor so that the Director could evaluate her request for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 
framework. 
Within her RFE response, the Petitioner submitted a professional plan indicating her intention to open 
her own company to offer legal and tax preparation consulting services to help small and medium­
sized U.S. firms and individuals improve operations and achieve better productivity and profitability 
levels. The professional plan asserts that these services will result in "generating revenues within the 
country and creating employment opportunities." 
The plan further indicates the Petitioner intends to "pursue a master's degree in international taxation 
at the~------~" "open a branch of I l" and "make strategic 
alliances with Colombian firms or startups to strengthen their business project," which "will bringjob 
creation, bridge commercial relations between Colombia and the United States, increase the supply of 
medical equipment in the field of oxygen therapy, and expand legal services in an innovative way." 
The Petitioner's RFE response also provided an advisory opinion letter from Professor S-L-M- at 
I I 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's professional plan for her company and the expert letter 
submitted in response to the RFE but determined that she had not established the national importance 
of her specific proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not give 
sufficient weight to the documentation submitted, which it emphasizes was "all based on research and 
sta[tis]tics collected from several experts and specialized government agencies." She maintains that 
her proposed endeavor "is of national importance to the international trade, financial, and compliance 
sectors in the United States" because it will help U.S businesses in "promoting compliance with 
regulations and ethical business practices, optimizing financial operations, and contributing to 
economic growth and stability." 
Regarding the Petitioner's professional plan, the Director discussed this evidence and concluded that 
it did not establish that the Petitioner's business has a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, 
that it will operate in an economically depressed area,5 or that it would otherwise reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. The Petitioner does not 
specifically address or contest these conclusions on appeal. 
The record supports the Director's conclusion that the record lacks evidence that the proposed 
endeavor's future staffing levels and business activity would provide substantial economic benefits in 
Florida or in the United States, or that it otherwise has broader national implications within the field. 
The professional plan is very limited and does not include a marketing strategy, staffing or personnel 
projections, or any financial projections. Without this evidence, we cannot evaluate the proposed 
endeavor's impact on job creation or its overall economic impact. As such, the Petitioner has not 
supported a claim that her proposed endeavor is likely to, for example, introduce innovations that may 
have broader implications in the tax or business law field. 
5 As the Director noted, the professional plan does not specifically state that her proposed endeavor will be headquartered 
in Florida or will target Florida. 
3 
Although the professional plan indicates that the Petitioner's business seeks to help small and medium­
sized U.S. firms and individuals improve operations and achieve better productivity and profitability 
levels, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the 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 find the record does not show that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her customers to impact the 
tax or business law field, or the international trade s ector, at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates the importance of the industry or profession, and her role as a 
lawyer and tax law specialist within the proposed company; however, these factors do not sufficiently 
establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner likewise reiterates her 
professional experience and abilities. While important, the Petitioner's expertise acquired through her 
employment relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor 
the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
Further, regarding the advisory opinion letter, in addressing the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, the professor states that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to provide legal consultancy 
services to help small and medium-sized U.S. enterprises will result in "generating revenues within 
the country," "creating employment opportunities," and "increasing tax revenues to the federal and 
state governments," and "will broadly enhance societal welfare." However, the professor, does not 
discuss the Petitioner's professional plan and does not address its prospective substantial economic 
impact. Nor does the professor discuss the implications of the proposed endeavor on the larger field 
oflegal consulting. For example, the professor has not offered sufficient evidence that the Petitioner's 
legal consulting services through her company would employ a significant population of workers in 
an economically depressed area, or that her endeavor would offer a particular U.S. region or its 
population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. 
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'l , 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a noncitizen'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 is lacking in relevance and probative value with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
Moreover, we acknowledge that the aforementioned recommendation letters detail the Petitioner's 
effectiveness and skills in her previous work in Colombia as a lawyer specializing in tax and finance, 
but they do not address the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
4 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met her burden of proof 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 second and third prongs of 
the Dhanasar framework, detailed discussion of the remaining prongs cannot change the outcome of 
this appeal. Therefore, we reserve those issues and will dismiss the appeal as a matter of discretion. 6 
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. 
6 See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25-26: see also L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 516, n.7. 
5