Date of Decision: June 14, 2021
Service Center: Texas 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, Tax Law, Corporate Law
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner demonstrated that her proposed endeavor had substantial merit. Her work as a legal consultant in promoting cross-border commercial activities and advising on tax implications, legal systems, and business regulations between the United States and Brazil showed potential to benefit economic interests.
Criteria Not Met:
- Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show she was well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. Although she submitted documentation of her academic credentials, business experience, and letters of support, these did not convincingly demonstrate her capacity to influence or advance the fields of legal consulting and cross-border commercial activities significantly.
- Beneficial to the United States to Waive the Requirements of the Labor Certification Process: The petitioner failed to show that, on balance, waiving the labor certification requirement would be beneficial to the United States. The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the national interest in her contributions.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue her career in the United States as a legal consultant, advising foreign companies and investors on conducting business in the U.S. market and assisting U.S. companies with cross-border transactions with Brazil and other Latin American countries. Her focus included tax implications, dispute resolution, and navigating bureaucratic procedures.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor was recognized for its substantial merit due to its potential to facilitate international business and investment. However, the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her work rose to the level of national importance.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The petitioner argued that her work would contribute to the United States by promoting international business and investment. However, she did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that her contributions would justify waiving the labor certification process.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted her curriculum vitae, business development documentation, and letters of support. However, these documents did not adequately demonstrate her ability to significantly impact her field. The letters from colleagues and professionals praised her work but did not provide concrete examples of her consulting services being widely adopted or recognized in the legal consulting field.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s assertions about her influence and impact were not fully supported by the evidence provided. The documentation did not clearly show that her work had been widely adopted or recognized in the field of legal consulting and cross-border commercial activities.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not provided or summarized in the decision.
Advisory Letter:
Provided but not sufficiently detailed to support the claim of national importance.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included letters from colleagues and professionals, which praised her work but did not adequately demonstrate her significant impact in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the criteria for demonstrating that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor or that waiving the labor certification requirement would be beneficial to the United States. The evidence was insufficient to support her claims of substantial impact and national importance.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
