Date of Decision: January 25, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Legal Consulting
Petitioner Information
Profession: Legal Consultant
Field: Legal Consulting
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None:
The petitioner did not meet any of the specific criteria required to establish eligibility for the EB-2 classification or to demonstrate exceptional ability.
Criteria Not Met:
Advanced Degree:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he holds an advanced degree in the proposed endeavor’s specialty. The documentation provided did not establish the advanced degree equivalence required for the EB-2 classification.
Exceptional Ability:
The petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the six exceptional ability criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The documentation provided was insufficient to establish his qualifications and experience.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to create a legal consulting business in the United States, leveraging his professional experience and knowledge of the legal industry to provide consulting services.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the importance of legal consulting was acknowledged, the petitioner did not provide a specific description of his proposed endeavor and how it would have national importance. The focus was on the industry in general rather than his specific contributions.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided a professional plan and statement, articles about Brazil’s economy, and industry reports about the U.S. legal services industry. However, these documents did not sufficiently describe his specific future activities and their potential national impact.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor
The petitioner did not provide a clear and detailed description of his specific proposed endeavor. The evidence focused more on the general importance of legal consulting rather than detailing his unique contributions and plans.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not provided or applicable in this case.
Business Plan:
Not provided or applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter:
Included letters from colleagues and industry reports, but they lacked specific details on the petitioner’s proposed future activities and their national importance.
Any other supporting documentation:
A professional plan and statement, articles about Brazil’s economy, and industry reports about the U.S. legal services industry, but these did not establish the advanced degree equivalence required for the EB-2 classification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed due to the petitioner not demonstrating that he qualifies for second-preference classification as either an advanced degree professional or as an individual of exceptional ability.
Reasoning: The evidence did not establish a sufficiently detailed proposed endeavor, nor did it establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Further analysis of eligibility under the remaining Dhanasar prongs was deemed unnecessary.
