Date of Decision: September 18, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Legal Analysis and Business Management
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Legal Analyst and Entrepreneur
- Field: Legal Analysis and Business Management
- Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner, a legal analyst and entrepreneur, sought classification under the EB-2 category as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and requested a national interest waiver. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that while the petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, she did not establish that waiving the job offer requirement would be in the national interest. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviewed and dismissed the appeal.
Key Points from the Decision
- Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner proposed to work as an entrepreneur in the legal field, providing consulting services through her company, registered in Florida. She intended to offer legal and tax services to companies seeking to do business between the United States and Latin America, particularly Brazil. The petitioner argued that her services would facilitate foreign direct investments (FDI) and generate economic contributions to the U.S. economy. However, the AAO found that the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate how her proposed endeavor would have a broader impact beyond her company and its clients.
- National Importance: The AAO agreed with the Director’s conclusion that the petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor had national importance. While the petitioner’s work could benefit her clients, the AAO found that the evidence did not show how her specific endeavor would impact the U.S. economy or legal field at a national level. The business plan provided by the petitioner included general assertions about potential economic benefits, but these were not supported by detailed explanations or independent evidence. The AAO noted that the growth, revenue, and hiring projections in the business plan lacked substantiation, making it difficult to discern how the petitioner’s endeavor differed from other independent consultancy firms in the U.S.
- Supporting Evidence: The petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter, recommendation letters, industry articles, and reports to support her claim. However, the AAO determined that this evidence did not adequately demonstrate the national importance of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor. The expert opinion focused on the general importance of entrepreneurship and tax planning but did not specifically address the national impact of the petitioner’s work. The AAO concluded that the petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, which requires demonstrating that the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor had national importance. As a result, she did not qualify for a national interest waiver.
