Thirty years into his immigration law career, Michael Egan—a solo practitioner based in the suburbs of Washington, D.C.—has never had an EB‑1 or National Interest Waiver case denied and has maintained the same record in PERM and all its previous permutations. Not one. In an industry where some firms treat denials as an unavoidable cost of doing business, this record stands out.

“And ever since my first two years in the business, I have not received a Request for Evidence either,” he says. “That is not something I advertise to clients, because there’s always a denial on the horizon, regardless of how astute or experienced you may be, or how successful your client is.”

He never consciously set out to succeed in every case. Rather, he explains, “my drive for the best product I can achieve is based on a natural psychological state that is true of all attorneys. No one, and particularly lawyers, ever strives to be mediocre.” For Mr. Egan, this effort reflects something more fundamental than professional success.  It reflects what he believes immigration law should be.

How a Historic Preservation Dream Led to Immigration Law

Mr. Egan describes his path to immigration law as “accidental.” Deeply passionate about architecture, he originally intended to pursue architectural preservation as a legal career. He spent time connecting with leaders in the field, meeting privately with the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s head of legal, attending architectural conservation meetings, and envisioning a future dedicated to preserving the built environment.

Reality intervened during law school. Financially, Egan needed work. In his second year, he found a job working alongside an immigrant from China who handled EB‑1 petitions and National Interest Waivers.  That period was the immediate aftermath of NYSDOT.

“That was a very high challenge,” Mr. Egan recalls. “And I enjoyed the game—trying to interpret their life and their story into something of critical importance not only to them, but to the country.”

The work proved intellectually captivating. It demanded creativity, intuition, and immersion in each client’s personal narrative. Translating lives, research, and careers into persuasive legal frameworks was both analytically demanding and personally meaningful. Without planning it, he had found his calling.

Building Expertise at Abbott Laboratories and Beyond

Early in his career, Mr. Egan helped found a boutique law firm that served major corporate clients, including Abbott Laboratories. At the time, Abbott employed roughly 65,000 people across 134 countries, providing what he describes as “very fertile ground” for developing technical immigration expertise.

His work spanned the full range of immigration matters but focused primarily on labor certification. There, Egan developed the core principle that continues to define his practice: attention to detail determines outcomes.

“It also helped that we didn’t have mentors,” he notes, “which gave me the freedom to arrange matters to my own expectations.”

For scientists and engineers, this meant something uncommon in the industry. He actually reads their published research.

“I’m the type of attorney who reads and deciphers their peer‑reviewed articles to get a proper foundation and vision for their petitions and then transform them into a format that is easily perceivable by a nontechnical audience,” he explains. “It doesn’t necessarily take long, but it is often required to raise them to the level of being extraordinary in the eyes of USCIS.”

At its most fundamental level, he believes, high‑level immigration advocacy is storytelling.

“It traces the evolution of one person’s rise to national importance and the acquisition of extraordinary talent,” he says. “In all cases, you must develop a compelling story. They may not even be very clear on that themselves.”

Why Michael Egan Left Firm Life Behind

Despite his success, Mr. Egan eventually walked away from big firm life. His reason goes to the heart of his professional philosophy.

“The greatest concern in my work is fiduciary duty,” he says, referring to the legal obligation of loyalty, trust, and care that attorneys owe to clients and that requires attorneys to prioritize the client’s interests above their own or any third party.

“It’s not a matter of personal philosophy or eccentricity.  It is in the attorney disciplinary code.  And on a practical level, it is the linchpin of the type of symbiotic legal relationship I always strive toward.”

This realization led him to conclude that, while a law firm operates as a financial enterprise, attorneys should not exercise the profit motive at the expense of—or even to the diminution of—the client’s interests.

“Even in the most pragmatic terms, it lends itself to broad client satisfaction and retention. A present convenience for an attorney can easily lead to the destruction of an immigrant’s future in the U.S. years down the road. Steering away from fiduciary duty is selling yourself out as an attorney. I have seen it in practice where profit plays a leading role, including one that proved to be a whirlwind collision of misfortunes.”

“I was engaged in rendering RFEs for NIWs. While studying introductory material for the position, I discovered a shattering notation by the presiding partner, reading, ‘Attorneys should not be spending hours on these. We have templates for this.’ But unfortunately, the firm had no meaningful templates in any direct or universal sense. Then, increasingly, I realized that if they ever had a system for processing RFEs, it was disjunctive and lacking a continuous thread.”

“The original underlying NIW petitions were consistent in lacking nearly every requirement for approval. Sheer luck allowed them to receive an RFE rather than a denial.  In one central matter, the firm’s first step in their response consisted of letters from support staff.  The writers did not address a single demand of the request. They were clearly untrained to respond to RFEs and appeared not to have seen the RFE itself. As a result, the letters were not only ineffective but irrelevant. I then had to rewrite them expansively and develop new letters from scratch on my own initiative to give the response a chance of approval. That shouldn’t have been required and took an extensive investment that was well in excess of the anticipated timeframe, but was necessary.”

“The experience put an end to that environment for the foreseeable future, although I admit that the thought of running an immigration function remains appealing.”

A Practice Pointer: Using Government Documents to Prove National Interest

Mr. Egan offers a practical insight for practitioners handling National Interest Waiver cases. During the Biden administration, the White House published lists identifying emerging technologies that the government deemed critical to the national interest, ranging from advanced engineering materials to integrated communication and networking technologies.

“I realized many of my clients worked squarely within those fields,” Egan explains. “The government had essentially preordained them as nationally important—and in many instances, relevant to national security. That became some of the strongest evidence available for NIWs.”

He notes that the Trump administration issued similar documents identifying priority technologies. While he considers them “somewhat watered down,” he still finds them highly useful.

“I strongly suggest practitioners search for this type of information from the White House or congressional bodies. It is one of the most powerful elements you can add to these petitions.”

From AI Skeptic to Cautious Embracer

Mr. Egan admits he initially resisted the use of artificial intelligence.

“I’ve traditionally been a real Luddite,” he says, “meaning someone who’s generally opposed to new technology or very cautious about it.”

Early AI hype deepened his skepticism. A Jon Stewart Daily Show episode on AI reinforced this reaction, especially after an AI CEO proclaimed the technology to be “more profound than fire or electricity,” which was immediately followed by a segment of Zuckerberg demonstrating AI’s ability to make toast. Jon Stewart quipped, “Why don’t you work on ending diseases and climate change, and we’ll hold down the fort on toast.”

But gradually, Egan realized that he was already using AI for proofreading, background facts, and quick research tasks, “along with others for greater detail or strategic redundancy. That was the aha moment when I came to understand that AI had become an inescapable force of nature.”

He compares this moment to the earliest era of personal computing.

“The best example I have of describing that moment is when Steve Jobs of Apple introduced the Apple II with its particularly clever operating system. Everyone acknowledged its importance but felt mystified about its practical use. A ‘killer app’ was needed. That arrived with computerized spreadsheets, which landed with a huge splashdown on Wall Street and directly invigorated the American economy.”

Still, he draws a line. He views AI as excellent for straightforward tasks such as non‑immigrant visa applications and form‑filling. But for narrative‑driven EB‑1 and NIW cases—where storytelling and creative advocacy matter most—he remains cautious.

“I can see AI being very excellent for some types of immigration work,” he acknowledges. “But developing a lengthy document, doing a storytelling exercise? I was skeptical. But with the introduction of AI legal software for other areas of the process, I believe my monthly output could double without sacrificing quality or personalization.”

A Philosophy of Solo Practice

Today, Egan runs his own practice and limits himself to just two new cases per month. This self‑imposed cap might seem financially counterproductive, but it allows him to deliver the deep engagement he believes each client deserves.

“I have a waitlist,” he says. “People are willing to wait. It’s obviously financially challenging. I could make more money if I processed cases more quickly. But in my own fashion, I have to dive in deeply.”

Solo practice brings challenges: irregular income, administrative burdens, copying documents, mailing packages, and managing operations without paralegals or infrastructure. Egan acknowledges that running to the post office can feel burdensome for an attorney who would rather focus on substantive legal work.

“Nonetheless, I feel the benefits by far outweigh those hindrances,” he says. “It’s a pleasant life for me.

I enjoy the challenges and intellectual puzzles it involves.  I aim for the best in myself and to bring out the best in my clients. That’s highly rewarding beyond monetary compensation or anything of that nature.”