Date of Decision: November 8, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Law
Petitioner Information
Profession: Lawyer
Field: Law
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Motion to Reconsider: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Advanced Degree: The Petitioner was determined to qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree in law.
Criteria Not Met:
- National Importance: The Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor—working as a lawyer and providing legal services—has national importance. The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner’s work would have a significant impact beyond her immediate business operations and clients to benefit the U.S. economy or the legal services industry on a national scale.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to continue working as a lawyer in the United States, providing legal services and advice to clients. She argued that her work has significant merit and benefits, particularly in supporting the legal needs of underserved communities.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The appeal and subsequent motion to reconsider were dismissed because the evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor would have a significant impact on the U.S. economy or the legal services industry on a national scale. The Petitioner’s argument that her work supports the legal needs of underserved communities was recognized as valuable, but it was not sufficient to meet the threshold of national importance under the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner contended that her proposed endeavor’s national importance should not be dependent on demonstrating an immediate or quantifiable economic impact, but the Director concluded that the proposed work did not demonstrate broader implications or positive economic effects that would elevate it to national importance.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
This prong was not analyzed in detail because the Petitioner did not satisfy the first prong of the Dhanasar framework regarding national importance.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted legal arguments, case law, and an expert opinion letter. However, these were insufficient to establish the required level of national importance or demonstrate how the specific endeavor would create substantial positive effects on a national level.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Director found that the Petitioner’s arguments and evidence did not sufficiently connect the proposed legal services to broader industry-wide or national impacts. The motion to reconsider did not adequately address these deficiencies.
Supporting Documentation
Legal Arguments and Case Law:
The legal arguments and references to case law supported the Petitioner’s qualifications but did not convincingly demonstrate that the endeavor would have a significant national impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal and subsequent motion to reconsider were denied because the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor as a lawyer would have national importance or broader implications in the field of law. The evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States on a national level.
