dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 11, 2023 In Re: 28456396 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an accountant and entrepreneur, 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). U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus 
of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that although 
the Petitioner established eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, the record did not demonstrate his eligibility for the requested national interest 
waiver. 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 apreponderance 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. An 
advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree.1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or aforeign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement " in the national interest." 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
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 USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• 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 Petitioner proposes to work in the United States for atax planning and customs trade consultancy 
business that he established in Florida. The Director determined that the Petitioner established his 
eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; however, he did not establish 
that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. The Director found that while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, he did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, as required 
by the first Dhanasar prong. The Director further found that the Petitioner did not establish that he is 
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification. Upon de novo 
review, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver 
of the labor certification would be in the national interest. 3 
A. Member of Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as aprofessional holding an advanced 
degree based on the Petitioner holding "the equivalent of an advanced degree and at least [five] years 
of progressive post-baccalaureate work experience .... " However, the Director did not explain the 
basis for this determination. After reviewing the record, we disagree with the Director's 
determination. 
The record ipdicates that the Peiitioner holds a bachelor in accounting services from ~I---~ 
Universidade~L______ ~]in Brazil and has worked in the accounting field in Brazil. The 
Petitioner provided a copy of his diploma, academic transcripts, and an academic evaluation. The 
academic evaluation states, "Considering [the Petitioner's] academic qualifications, it is my expert 
opinion that [the Petitioner] has an equivalent of a U.S. Bachelor's Degree in Accounting." The 
record shows that the Petitioner has the foreign equivalent of aU.S. bachelor's degree in accounting. 
However, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner has five years of progressive post-baccalaureate 
experience in his specialty. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) provides that a petitioner 
present "evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer(s) showing that the 
[petitioner] has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty." 
(emphasis added). The record shows that the Petitioner earned his bachelor's degree in accounting 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
services on September 13, 2013. Although the Petitioner submitted two letters showing he has more 
than five years of experience in his profession, the letters do not demonstrate five years of experience 
after he earned his degree. A letter from,___________ _.states that the Petitioner worked 
as a business consultant from April 18, 2011, to April 12, 2013, which is prior to the Petitioner earning 
his bachelor's degree in September 2013. Therefore, such experience does not qualify as post­
baccalaureate experience. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). The second letter froml II lstates that he worked as an accounting manager for three years and 11.5 months, from June 
1, 2015, to May 10, 2019. While this shows post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty, it is less 
than the five years required under the regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
In sum, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has at least five years progressive 
experience following his bachelor's degree as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
The Petitioner has not established that he has an advanced degree above that of his bachelor's degree 
or that he has at least five years of post-baccalaureate experience. Therefore, we withdraw the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner is eligible to be classified as a member of the professions 
possessing an advanced degree. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. 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." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 
at 889. 
The Petitioner proposes to work as an accountant and the chief executive officer for his tax planning 
and customs trade consultancy business,_____________ ___,The Petitioner's definitive 
statement states that his business "is focused in providing consultancy in the compliance areas of 
classification, trade risk, taxes and import duties, as well as certifications, product testing authority 
and country-specific import licensing approvals." The business would focus "on facilitating a 
dominant economic correspondence between American companies [sic] and the Latin American 
market [sic] .... " The business plan further specifies that the Petitioner's business would "provide 
consulting services on customs, accountability, tax, and supply chain management to U.S. exporters 
with regards to international trade offerings" which "will help U.S. companies retain competitive 
advantage with their operations with Brazil and Latin America." We agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
Even though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director found that "the 
record does not show that the specific proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond the 
company's clients and employees to affect the field or industry more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance." Since the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor, the Director found he did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
3 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof, instead 
imposing a standard stricter than the preponderance of the evidence standard. The Petitioner further 
argues the Director erroneously applied the law by not giving "due regard" to the evidence submitted, 
specifically the Petitioner's resume, his business plan, letters of recommendation, and industry reports 
and articles. Upon de nova review, we find the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed 
endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar's first prong, as discussed below. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or '·probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his proposed endeavor has national importance, particularly 
because it will "generate substantial ripple effects upon key financial activities on behalf of the United 
States" and would be "a vital aspect of U.S. accounting operations and productivity, [sic] which 
contributes to a revenue-enhanced business ecosystem, and an enriched, productivity-centered 
economy." (emphasis omitted). The Petitioner argues his proposed endeavor will benefit the United 
States "by creating jobs and economic stability." 
The Petitioner stresses on appeal that his more than 12 years "of progressive experience and acumen 
in the accounting field" and his educational credentials to argue that his "work offers broad 
implications to the United States' accounting industry, specifically through his endeavors within key 
commercial segments." (emphasis omitted). The Petitioner relies on his background to emphasize 
that he "has brought numerous advantages to the organizations that he has served" by stimulating "his 
served companies' economic capacities" and prioritizing "customer satisfaction by ensuring al I 
projects are aligned with customer's actual needs, furthering customer loyalty." The Petitioner argues 
the United States "would benefit from investing in well-versed accounting professionals such as [the 
Petitioner], who are knowledgeable regarding potentially profitable markets for U.S. environmentally 
friendly organizations in regions that are economically and politically strategic, yet extremely 
complex." (emphasis omitted). He contends his "proposed endeavor will have multiple positive 
effects on the U.S. marketplace, thus enhancing business operations on behalf of the nation, and 
contributing to a streamlined economic landscape." The Petitioner asserts his "proposed endeavor is 
clearly of national importance, when considering how much a professional with his caliber can 
contribute to the national interests, and to the U.S. economy, regardless of a labor certification." 
(emphasis in original). 
However, the Petitioner's reliance on his academic credentials and professional experience to establish 
the national importance of his proposed endeavor is misplaced. His academic credentials and 
professional experience relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The 
issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national 
importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
4 
satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential 
prospective impact" of his work. See id. at 889. 
In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. The record 
does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor wi 11 substantially benefit the field of 
accounting, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. As pointed out 
by the Director, the evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's consulting business would impact 
the accounting field more broadly. 
With the petition, the Petitioner submitted his statement and a business plan contending his proposed 
endeavor has national importance based on potential economic and national security benefits. The 
Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor would "increase U.S. competitiveness and help relocate 
critical supply chains out of China while promoting Ally-shoring, [sic] a matter of national security 
[sic]" by facilitating business between the United States and Latin America. The business plan asserts 
that bolstering United States and Brazilian business relations would have a national impact on the 
strained supply chains in the United States and would reduce the United States' dependence on China. 
The business plan further asserts, "Financial and tax planning are critical in trade and an essential 
aspect of any financial plan" and that his company understands foreign tax legislation and wi 11 
"provide clients with necessary guidance regarding their international banking operations .... " The 
business plan explains the Petitioner's intended ownership and financial investment in the business; 
the business' products and services; the business' direct benefits to U.S. companies; an in-depth 
analysis of having a secure supply chain in the United States; business' expertise with doing business 
with Brazil; proposed expansion throughout the United States; demand for accounting consulting 
products and services; and the business' proposed marketing, staffing, and financial forecasts. 
However, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support his claims that his 
business' activities stand to provide substantial economic and national security benefits to the United 
States. The Petitioner's claims that his tax planning and customs trade consulting business will benefit 
the U.S. economy and national security has not been established through independent and objective 
evidence. The Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his endeavor has the potential 
to provide economic and national security benefits to the United States, including improving the 
supply chain trade and the national security for the United States. The Petitioner must support his 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 
376. Also, without sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed job duties as the accountant and 
chief executive officer for his business would impact the tax planning and custom trade industries 
more broadly, rather than benefiting his consulting business and his proposed clients, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. 
The business plan projects that in five years the consulting business will hire 88 direct employees, pay 
wages of over 15 million dollars, and generate almost 2.4 million dollars in national, state, and local 
taxes. However, the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing 
5 
projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized. While the Petitioner 
expresses his desire to contribute to the United States, he has not established with specific, probative 
evidence that his endeavor will have broader implications in his field, will have significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers, or will have other substantial positive economic effects in Florida or the 
United States. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See id. Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record 
lacks evidence showing that creating 88 direct jobs, paying wages of over 15 million dollars, and 
generating almost 2.4 million dollars in tax revenue over a five-year period rises to the level of national 
importance. 
The Petitioner further claims on appeal that the national importance of his proposed endeavor is 
evidenced in industry reports and articles. The reports and articles relate to the economic benefits of 
immigrants and entrepreneurship; the role of financial managers; investments in capital; stock market 
effects on the economy; the financial services industry; U.S. economic benefits from international 
trade and investment; labor shortages in the financial services industries; workforce concerns in the 
investment management industry; top world economies and effects on direct U.S. investment; and 
long-term investment in developing countries. We recognize the importance of the finance industry, 
international trade, and related careers, as well as the significant contributions from immigrants who 
have become successful entrepreneurs; however, merely working in the accounting, finance, and 
international trade fields or starting a tax planning and customs trade consulting business to support 
these industries is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, 
we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Matter 
of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that 
"[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. 
at 890. The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact 
or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner further claims on appeal that he demonstrated national importance with his resume and 
recommendation letters from colleagues, former employers, and a client of his business. The letters 
mainly discuss the Petitioner's work experience and his professionalism in working to improve the 
accounting operations for his former employers and clients. The letters convey his accounting 
expertise and the importance of his work to specific projects which helped his employers and clients 
overcome accounting and finance challenges. For instance, a letter from the Petitioner's former 
colleague emphasizes the Petitioner's technical expertise in accounting which resulted in the Petitioner 
being promoted from an accounting consultant to an accounting manager. The letter also briefly 
describes how the Petitioner helped solve the company's financial issues by providing international 
trade options for its raw materials. Letters from other colleagues similarly attest to the Petitioner's 
accounting experience and his importance to improving the accounting operations for his employers 
and clients. 
6 
However, these documents relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. See id. at 890. We 
acknowledge that the Petitioner provided valuable accounting, finance, and tax advice services for his 
employers and clients in the past. However, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and 
evidence based on these recommendation letters to demonstrate the prospective impact of his proposed 
endeavor will rise to the level of national importance, rather than only impacting his clients. The 
letters do not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work will have national or global implications in the 
fields of accounting, tax planning, and customs trade. 
We further note that the record includes an expert opinion froml Iprofessor of practice at 
_____ -I University inl !Oklahoma, providing an analysis of the national importance 
of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stating, "[The Petitioner] will work in an area of substantial 
merit and national importance." ( emphasis omitted). The opinion explains the duties of accountants 
and the benefits of companies using experienced accountants and financial experts to improve their 
operations, thereby generating tax revenue and employment opportunities. The opinion briefly 
mentions that U.S. businesses using a professional with the Petitioner's experience in accounting and 
finance will help them navigate doing business abroad. 
The opinion's focus on the need for financial experts and accountants and how the Petitioner's 
professional experience makes him well positioned to help U.S. businesses, particularly those having 
an interest in international business, does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific endeavor may 
have aprospective impact in his field. The opinion does not focus on the Petitioner's specific endeavor 
and it having a potential prospective impact on the U.S. economy, or in the fields of his proposed 
endeavor, accounting, tax planning, and customs trade consulting. Simply stating that his work would 
support an important industry is not sufficient to meet the "national importance" requirement under 
the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor extends beyond his business and his 
future clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Beyond general assertions, he has not demonstrated that the 
work he proposes to undertake as the accountant and chief executive officer of his proposed tax 
planning and customs trade consulting business offers original innovations that contribute to 
advancements in his industry or otherwise has broader implications for his field. The economic and 
national security benefits that the Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors, and the Petitioner did 
not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his proposed business' tax planning, and customs 
trade consulting work and the claimed economic results. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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). 
7 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, or that he has met the requisite first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that the Petitioner is not eligible for a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8