Date of Decision: October 18, 2023
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
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Advanced Degree: The Petitioner was acknowledged to qualify for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The initial denial was not based on the Petitioner’s qualifications but on the failure to meet the national interest waiver requirements.
Criteria Not Met:
- National Importance: The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor as a legal consultant has national importance. The Director and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) noted that while the Petitioner’s work is important within her specific field, she did not provide sufficient evidence to show how her work would impact the legal field or the U.S. economy on a national scale. The Petitioner argued that her consulting services would contribute to the legal field by improving legal practices and standards, but the evidence provided did not establish that her contributions would have significant national implications.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to continue working as a legal consultant, focusing on enhancing legal practices and providing expert guidance to law firms and businesses. However, the Director found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate how her work would extend beyond her immediate clients to have a broader impact on the legal industry or U.S. economy.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the Petitioner’s work in legal consulting is important, the decision concluded that it did not meet the threshold for national importance. The AAO noted that the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor did not demonstrate broader implications for the U.S. legal system or substantial positive effects on the U.S. economy. The evidence provided focused on the Petitioner’s qualifications and the general importance of legal consulting rather than demonstrating the specific impact of her work on a national scale.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, which is essential for the national interest waiver. The lack of evidence supporting the national importance of her proposed activities, coupled with the Petitioner’s inability to demonstrate a broader impact on the legal consulting field, made it difficult to justify waiving the labor certification process.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner provided personal statements, legal documents, and a professional plan. However, these were insufficient to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. The evidence focused on the Petitioner’s expertise rather than the broader impact of her work.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were no major inconsistencies in the petition; however, the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate how her work as a legal consultant would have a significant impact on the U.S. legal system or economy.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not provided.
Business Plan:
Included but did not establish national importance or substantial positive economic effects.
Advisory Letter:
Included but focused primarily on the general significance of legal consulting rather than the Petitioner’s specific contributions.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included legal documents and a professional plan, which were insufficient to meet the national importance requirement.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the criteria for demonstrating that her proposed work as a legal consultant would have a significant national impact. The evidence provided was insufficient to support claims of substantial merit and national importance, and the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the EB-2 classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
