dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 29, 2024 In Re: 33656545 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an accounting specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the Petitioner 
had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would 
be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (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 discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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. 
Id. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that 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. 
See id. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver 
of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer is warranted. 
The Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan to found "an accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping, 
and payroll services firm that provides (a) accounting outsourcing services, (b) tax preparation 
outsourcing services, ( c) payroll processing outsourcing services, ( d) accounts payable management 
outsourcing services and (e) corporate opening and ITIN registration services." The Petitioner 
submitted a copy of a business plan that indicates the accounting outsourcing company intends to be 
headquartered inl I Florida, expanding tol IAlabama, in the third year of operations, and 
to I I Mississippi, in the fifth year of operations. The business plan generally describes the 
accounting outsourcing company's target clients as "American companies." 
The business plan asserts that the company will employ 21 workers-including the Petitioner as the 
company's "CEO"-in the first year of operations, increasing to a total of 68 total workers in the fifth 
year of operations, and that it would "generate a total of 88 indirect jobs." The business plan indicates 
the Petitioner's company would employ eight "accountants and auditors" and "accounting and 
auditing specialists," respectively, two "payroll and timekeeping analysts," and one "general and 
operations manager," "administrative assistant," and "janitor and cleaner" respectively, at the I 
location in the first year of operations, adding additional workers in those job categories as the 
company expands in the third and fifth years. However, the plan does not elaborate on the nature, 
location, wages, and other details of the indirect jobs it asserts the proposed endeavor would create. 
The business plan further indicates that the anticipated payroll for the first year of operations would 
be $809,674 for 21 workers, increasing to $2,741,945 in the fifth year of operations for 68 workers. 
We note that the workers' average annual wages would be approximately $38,500 and $40,300 in the 
first and fifth years, respectively, based on those figures. 
The Director determined that, although the record establishes the proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit, it does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have national importance, as required by 
the first Dhanasar prong. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. The Director 
2 
I 
acknowledged evidence in the record; however, the Director noted that the Petitioner's focus on her 
"past skills, services, career, and attributes are irrelevant in establishing if the proposed endeavor is of 
national importance," as opposed to their relevance to the second Dhanasar prong, which addresses 
whether an individual is well-positioned to advance a proposed endeavor. See id. at 888-91. The 
Director noted details in the Petitioner's business plan; however, the Director observed that the record 
does not establish how the "specific proposed endeavor would have any implications beyond her 
clients, to impact the field, industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly on a level commensurate with 
national importance." More specifically, the Director acknowledged that the business plan indicates 
the Petitioner's startup company would generate 68 direct jobs and 88 indirect jobs within its first five 
years of operation; however, the Director observed that the record "fails to provide how the specific 
proposed endeavor would operate on such a large scale to create jobs and revenues" that the business 
plan claims would occur. The Director also noted that the record does not establish how the startup 
company's direct-and even indirect-job creation would "improve a national shortage related to 
accounting or will trigger substantial positive economic impacts" as the Petitioner asserted would 
result from the proposed endeavor. The Director further concluded that the record does not satisfy the 
second or third Dhanasar prongs. See id. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that the business plan's discussion of job creation and revenue 
expectations demonstrate the proposed endeavor may have national importance. The Petitioner also 
generally states on appeal that the proposed endeavor "aligns with several key federal initiatives, 
including those of the Small Business Administration and the U.S. Department of Commerce," without 
elaborating on how the proposed endeavor aligns with those initiatives or how such an alignment 
would demonstrate the proposed endeavor's importance. The Petitioner further generally asserts on 
appeal that the proposed endeavor would fill "a critical gap in financial services, especially in regions 
lacking adequate professional services in accounting and financial management," without elaborating 
on any evidence in the record that relates to regions with inadequate professional accounting and 
financial management services and how, specifically, the proposed endeavor would affect any 
particular inadequacy. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential 
prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first 
prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
The record establishes that the proposed endeavor may benefit the Petitioner, as the owner of the 
startup accounting services company, the workers whom the Petitioner plans to employ, and the 
generalized "American companies" that may be the accounting services company's clients and 
customers. However, the record does not establish how the potential prospective impact of the 
proposed endeavor may have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance, as 
contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. 
3 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner's business plan anticipates employing approximately 21 workers 
inl Florida,! !Alabama, andl IMississippi, respectively, with an average annual 
wage of approximately $40,300. However, Dhanasar contemplates note merely the prospect of job 
creation but a "significant potential to employ U.S. workers" as a type of substantial positive economic 
effect that may indicate national importance. Id. The record does not establish how employing the 
various accountants, administrative assistants, janitors, and other job categories in those numbers, at 
those wages, and in those locations demonstrates the proposed endeavor's potential to employ U.S. 
workers would have the type of significance contemplated by Dhanasar as substantial positive 
economic effects that may indicate national importance. We further acknowledge that the business 
plan anticipates that the proposed endeavor would indirectly create an additional 88 jobs; however, as 
noted above, the record does not elaborate on details of the indirect jobs the business plan anticipates, 
such as the nature, location, and wages of those positions. Without more information than a mere 
number of abstract workers in some unspecified location(s), the record does not establish the 
significance of that hypothetical job creation. See id. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that her proposed endeavor "aligns with several key federal initiatives, 
including those of the Small Business Administration and the U.S. Department of Commerce." 
However, she does not elaborate on appeal how the proposed endeavor aligns with those initiatives or 
how such an alignment would demonstrate the proposed endeavor's importance. On the contrary, as 
explained above, the relevant question for determining national importance is not the importance of 
the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work. Instead, the relevant question is 
whether the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor that an individual proposes to 
undertake may have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance. See id. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Small Business Administration and the U.S. Department of Commerce 
initiatives are "aimed at bolstering small businesses and facilitating trade and investment," and that 
some of her accounting services company's customers may be small businesses generally "navigating 
international markets" who would use the company's "corporate opening and TTIN registration" 
services. However, she does not clarify on appeal how the record establishes what the referenced 
federal initiatives are. As noted above, Petitioners bear the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 75-76. Without more 
information about the actual federal initiatives, the record does not establish how the proposed 
endeavor may align with the initiatives. More to the point, without establishing how the proposed 
endeavor may align with certain initiatives for lack of probative information about those initiatives, 
the record does not establish how such a hypothetical alignment may demonstrate the type of national 
importance contemplated by Dhanasar. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. 
Next, although the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the proposed endeavor would fill "a critical gap in 
financial services, especially in regions lacking adequate professional services in accounting and 
financial management," she does not establish on appeal that there is a critical gap in financial services, 
whether in regions lacking adequate professional services in accounting and financial management or 
elsewhere, and how the proposed endeavor would fill such a gap. Again, Petitioners bear the burden 
of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 375-76. Relatedly, the record does not establish how the potential impact of the proposed 
endeavor may have national or even global implications within the field of accounting, or any other 
particular field, that may indicate national importance as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. 
4 
See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. For example, the record does not establish how any 
of the accounting services the Petitioner's company would provide may be like "certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. Instead, as noted above, the record establishes 
that the proposed endeavor would provide routine accounting services that would benefit the 
generalized "American companies" that may be the accounting services company's clients and 
customers. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. 
We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ITT. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5