dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 10, 2024 In Re: 29405363 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an accountant, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and/or an individual of 
exceptional ability , as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 
classification . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
the Petitioner is well positioned to carry out her endeavor or that it would be in the United States' 
interest to waive the requirement of a labor certification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary 
waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director did not analyze whether the Petitioner established eligibility for the EB-2 classification 
as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. Upon de nova 
review, we conclude the Petitioner has established that she holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. 
bachelor's degree and at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
Therefore, she established her eligibility as an advanced degree professional. The remaining issue is 
whether the Petitioner established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 
framework. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas 
such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner 
established eligibility under this prong but provided no analysis to support this determination. Upon 
de novo review, we withdraw the Director's finding in this regard and conclude the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility under prong one of the Dhanasar framework. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's plan, recommendation letters, certificates, work experience letters, and 
resume, among other documents. The Petitioner proposes to work as an accountant, which includes 
duties related to financial reconciliation; commercial budget, inventory, and audit support; and 
financial planning, controllership, and compliance with tax and accounting obligations. Although the 
Petitioner stated that she will not work for a single employer and will have the liberty to contract with 
more than one institution, she has not explained how this will occur. The Petitioner has not specified 
how she will carry out the claimed proposed endeavor accounting duties. Although the Petitioner is 
not required to have a job offer to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, in Dhanasar, we 
held that a petitioner sti 11 must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner leaves the proposed endeavor open to interpretation. For 
instance, we cannot determine whether the Petitioner plans to open her own accounting firm, work as 
an independent contractor under the aegis of an established accounting firm, or in some other capacity. 
To further illustrate, the Petitioner stated that her knowledge of U.S. tax regulations will assist 
individuals and businesses in cross-border transactions, but she has not sufficiently explained how 
cross-border transactions fit within her accounting services. Furthem1ore, the Petitioner's description 
of her proposed endeavor involves duties related to bookkeeping and auditing, which raises questions 
as to how she will divide her time between the various facets of her endeavor. Specificity is material, 
as the duties she performs and how she will perform them inform the level of impact her endeavor will 
have. 
2 
Regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner emphasized the 
importance and economic worth of the accounting industry. In determining national importance, the 
relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will 
work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 
See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. While we agree that accounting is important to the U.S. economy, 
the Petitioner's reliance on it to establish the national importance ofher proposed endeavor emphasizes 
the industry, rather than her specific proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner mentioned the economic cost of accounting errors and used the example of Uber to 
demonstrate how accounting errors can cost millions of dollars. Here, the Petitioner attempts to 
demonstrate a positive impact rising to the level of national importance by presenting the important 
downsides of not performing a job correctly. However, preventing a negative effect is not necessarily 
sufficient to establish an affirmative positive impact that rises to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner cautioned us not to assume that the financial health of businesses is a private matter 
only. We acknowledge the Petitioner's contention that her services will make other business run more 
efficiently and effectively, which will allow them to invest in other areas, thereby creating positive 
economic results overall. We also acknowledge that any basic economic activity has the potential to 
positively impact the economy. The Petitioner, however, does not offer a sufficient evidentiary basis 
to conclude that the "ripple effects" of her specific proposed endeavor wi 11 rise to the level of national 
importance. In other words, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. at 890. 
The Petitioner submitted an opinion letter froml Ia professor in accounting atl II ]provides background information on what accounting is and why it is 
important, but he does not appear to possess detailed knowledge of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
Although he mentions the Petitioner's "unique strategies," he does not explain what these strategies 
are or how they differ from existing, mainstream strategies. I I letter contains an explanation 
of the VITA program, the funding of which comes from the Internal Revenue Service and private 
sector partners. Based upon this! !concluded that the proposed endeavor impacts a matter 
that a government entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of national 
initiatives. Indeed, filing taxes is a nationally important concept and a government-sponsored 
program, like VITA, which helps individuals file taxes, supports this conclusion. However, the 
Petitioner has not clearly explained what level of involvement her proposed endeavor has with VITA 
or how her specific work will impact the VITA program or the government's tax collection initiatives 
overall. Therefore, we do not find support in the record for I I conclusions. 
Similarly, the Petitioner's recommendation letters do not support a finding of the Petitioner's 
eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong. The authors discussed the results she achieved for her 
employers and clients, how the Petitioner performed well on various projects in the past, and the 
success she brought to certain initiatives. However, the authors do not sufficiently explain how the 
Petitioner's perfmmance or the results she achieved extended beyond her employer and the specific 
parties involved to impact the field more broadly. For instance, one author mentioned how the 
Petitioner produced a time and cost reduction for the company, but the author does not support this 
assertion with corroborative details or explain how this benefit extended beyond the company. 
3 
Although the author mentions an "innovative pricing methodology," he provides little explanation of 
what the methodology is, how it functions, how it is different from typical methods, or how the 
methodology is attributable to the Petitioner. Even if he had, the author does not explain how this 
methodology would be relevant to the overall accounting industry or how others would be aware of it. 
Accordingly, we conclude the implications of her past work appear limited to her employer and clients. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided new recommendation 
letters, including one in which the author asserted that the Petitioner has influenced others in the field, 
such as her colleagues. However, the author offers few details or examples of what effect she had on 
her colleagues or how this effect had broader implications. Likewise, the author's suggestion that the 
Petitioner has innovative techniques and methods is not explained, nor does he explain how these 
techniques and methods affected the accounting field. While we have only discussed a couple of 
recommendation letters, these examples are indicative of the whole. We conclude these letters offer 
little support for a finding that the proposed endeavor has national importance. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor has national 
importance. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish eligibility under prong two of the Dhanasar 
framework. The second prong focuses on the individual and whether they are well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor. In analyzing this, we consider factors including, but not limited 
to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model or 
plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of 
potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. at 890. 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's education and recommendation letters, among other 
pieces of evidence. Nevertheless, the Director concluded the Petitioner had not sufficiently 
demonstrated she has a record of success or progress in related or similar efforts; has made progress 
towards achieving the proposed endeavor; that there is interest from potential customers or other 
relevant entities or individuals; or that she is otherwise well positioned to advance her work. Further, 
the Director stated the Petitioner "has not provided any contracts, agreements, or other documentary 
evidence" ... of any progress in reaching the goals of her proposed endeavor." We agree. Returning 
to the Petitioner's articulation of her proposed endeavor, we again confront the lack of specificity in 
how she will carry out her endeavor. It is unknown how she plans to provide her accounting services 
or even which types of clients and businesses she plans to target. As the Petitioner's plans are vague 
and open-ended, we agree with the Director that the record does not reflect a sufficiently detailed 
model or plan for future activities. 
The Petitioner provided various certificates indicating her familiarity and training in accounting 
practices in Brazil; however, she explained little about how she earned them. For example, attending 
"accounting day," is not self-explanatory and offers little indication of how this might position her 
well to carry out her endeavor. Moreover, she offers little evidence of her knowledge, skills, and 
training in U.S. accounting methods and regulations. The Petitioner acknowledged that the United 
States' method of accounting differs from that of many other countries. Further,! Iwrote 
4 
that the United States "has one of the most complex Indirect Tax Systems in the world." It is unclear 
how the Petitioner will carry out her proposed endeavor services, such as "the determination of federal, 
state, and municipal taxes and accessory statements, for submission to the Internal Revenue Service," 
without a demonstrated understanding of U.S.-specific tax matters. 
Furthermore, the record does not reflect that she has a license or certification to practice accounting in 
the United States, as opposed to in her home country. The Petitioner recently earned a training 
certificate in bookkeeping, which may indicate some level of familiarity with U.S. practices. 
However, the Petitioner did not explain how she earned this certificate or how it enables her to perform 
accounting services. The Petitioner submitted a certificate suggesting that she has some familiarity 
with individual tax preparation. While this may be true, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the depth 
of her familiarity with this topic, how she earned the certificate, or how this enables her to perform 
accounting services in the United States. Moreover, this ce1iificate's date indicates she earned it after 
the filing date of the petition, and therefore it cannot serve as evidence of progress towards the 
endeavor at the time of filing. 
As the above analysis demonstrates, we conclude the Petitioner has not established she is well 
positioned to advance her endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon the evidence she previously 
submitted. Our above analysis addresses many of the Petitioner's asse1iions on appeal. As the 
identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve remaining arguments. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that 
"courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary 
to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
111. CONCLUSION 
The documentation in the record does not establish a specific proposed endeavor, nor does it establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar 
precedent decision. Furthermore, the record does not establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to 
advance her endeavor. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. Further analysis of eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar would serve no 
meaningful purpose. 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first and second prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5