Date of Decision: MAY 1, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Law
Petitioner Information
Profession: Lawyer
Field: Corporate Law, Legal Compliance, Tax Law, Labor Law
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit: The Petitioner’s proposed endeavor has substantial merit as it involves providing specialized legal services that are valuable to U.S. companies engaging in cross-border projects, particularly with Brazil.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has national importance. The evidence provided did not establish that her legal services would broadly impact the field of corporate law or offer significant potential prospective impact beyond her immediate clients.
Significant Economic Effects: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that her work would create jobs for U.S. workers or have substantial positive economic effects.
Key Points from the Decision
The Petitioner, a lawyer, seeks an EB-2 NIW for her expertise in providing legal services for U.S. businesses engaged in cross-border projects with Brazil. Despite the acknowledged value of her specialized services, the appeal was denied because she did not meet the national importance requirement. The decision emphasized that the proposed endeavor should have broader implications and significant potential to impact the field or U.S. economy on a national level.
Proposed Endeavor
The Petitioner’s proposed endeavor involves offering specialized legal services in corporate law, legal compliance, tax law, and labor law to U.S. companies doing business in Brazil and Latin America. Her goal is to act as a legal advisor, providing expert guidance on Brazilian law and assisting in various legal matters to facilitate cross-border business activities.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s legal services are considered valuable and have substantial merit for businesses engaging in international trade and cross-border projects. However, the Petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to show that her work would have a broader national impact or significant economic benefits to the U.S. economy, as required under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Supporting Evidence:
The evidence included articles on the benefits of corporate law, the role of lawyers in business, and various reports on the shortage of legal services in certain areas. However, the documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance or broader implications of the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor
The Petitioner’s statements highlighted the importance of her legal services but did not convincingly show how these services would extend beyond her immediate clients to impact the U.S. economy or legal field at a national level.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Provided but did not sufficiently establish national importance.
Business Plan: Provided but lacked evidence of broader economic impact.
Advisory Letter: Included but not convincing in demonstrating national importance.
Any other supporting documentation: Included general articles and reports but did not meet the evidentiary standard for national importance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework regarding national importance.
Reasoning:
The decision was based on the Petitioner’s inability to demonstrate that her proposed legal services would have a significant national impact or substantial economic benefits beyond her direct clients.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
