dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 30, 2024 In Re: 34406531 
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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner was eligible for a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this classification. 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 I&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. 
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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 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 
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 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 2 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. 
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. 
Id. at 889. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, 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 third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer 
or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are 
available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish 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. 
Id. at 890-91. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a certified accountant who intends to develop an accounting consulting services firm 
based in Florida. She notes that she will provide an array of services including tax preparation, 
business auditing, and payroll management. 
The Director found the Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. However, the Director determined that the Petitioner had 
not met the Dhanasar requirements for a waiver of a job offer and labor certification from a U.S. 
employer. Specifically, the Director concluded that the national importance of the endeavor had not 
2 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). 
2 
been demonstrated under prong one, that the Petitioner was not well positioned to carry out the 
endeavor under prong two, or that the Petitioner had not shown that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement would be beneficial as required by prong three. We agree the Petitioner has not 
established the national importance of the endeavor, as required under the first prong of Dhanasar. 
A. The Petitioner Has Hot Demonstrated that Her Endeavor Has National Importance 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues she has satisfied prong one of the Dhanasar framework because the 
Director did not properly weigh the evidence, instead imposing "novel substantive and evidentiary 
requirements ." She contends that the Director did not appropriately evaluate the record using the 
preponderance of the evidence standard but instead used a novel standard. The Petitioner argues that 
the Director did not adequately consider the information contained in her resume, her professional 
plan, the evidence of her past work, the letters of recommendation , or articles detailing the impact of 
the accounting industry. She highlights her history of success as an accountant and her assumption 
of various roles throughout her career, and she argues that her endeavor will have direct economic 
impacts as well as ripple effects of national importance. 
In support of these contentions, the Petitioner has submitted evidence including, but not limited to: a 
business plan detailing her intention to open three offices over a period of five years; letters of support; 
diplomas, transcripts, and certificates; employment history; an expert opinion regarding her eligibility 
for a national interest waiver; and articles providing context and background on the financial services 
industry, the accounting industry, and the impact of immigrant entrepreneurs on the U.S. economy. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of the Dhanasar framework requiring a proposed 
endeavor to be of national importance. Although the Petitioner stresses that the proposed endeavor is 
likely to be successful given her extensive work experience, and that she will create employment 
opportunities, these factors are not sufficient to show national importance. To evaluate whether the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence 
documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the proposed endeavor. Although the evidence 
reflects the Petitioner's intention to provide valuable services for her clients, she has not offered 
sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 
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. Here, we find 
the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
her clientele to impact the financial services industry, the accounting industry, or otherwise impact 
economic initiatives more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 3 Furthermore, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects. 
Specifically, she has not shown that her company 's future staffing levels, business activity, associated 
3 The Petitioner has provided, and we have reviewed, a s ubstantial number of documents outlining the importance of 
immigrant entrepreneurs to the national and global economy, as well as highlighting the benefits from accounting services 
professionals. However, the Dhanasar framework instructs us to evaluate the impact of the specific proposed endeavor, 
rather than the field or industry generally. Id. at 889. 
3 
tax revenue, and financial initiatives stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or in 
the United States generally. 
While the business plan outlines the intent to hire fifty employees and reach a significant revenue target, 
these figures are not explained; similarly, the Petitioner does not indicate how she calculated the expected 
number of hours worked per year, or how she will meet those time demands. Ultimately, the record does 
not demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's 
undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Id. at 890. Although the Petitioner has highlighted the importance of the accounting industry to overall 
economic stability, she has not shown that the business services performed by the company would 
represent a significant share of the accounting market or otherwise have a national impact. 
In addition, although the Petitioner asserts that the company will hire U.S. employees and that the offices 
will be based in economically distressed areas, she has not offered sufficient evidence that she would 
employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that the endeavor would offer the region or 
its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or tax 
revenue. The Petitioner highlights that some portions of the markets she intends to target are 
distressed, and she provides evidence that office space is available in those areas, but she does not 
otherwise indicate how her work will be tied to economically distressed areas. 4 Accordingly, the 
Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the Director violated USCIS policy or erroneously 
evaluated the case. The Petitioner takes issue with the Director's weighing of the evidence, but she 
has not provided details of which "novel standard" the Director purportedly applied. Similarly, 
although she alleges that the Director failed to correctly consider various pieces of evidence, she has 
not provided details of how the Director's analysis misevaluated this evidence. 
Because the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. We reserve opinion on whether the 
Petitioner could satisfy the second and third prongs to qualify for a national interest waiver. 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 the applicant did 
not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that the proposed endeavor is of national importance. Because she has not 
met the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that she has not established she is 
eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion . 
4 We note that the Petitioner provided articles of incorporation and associated filings for the associated business in response 
to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). The Petitioner's business plan indicated that she intended to establish her 
headquarters in a "qualified Hub Zone" within Pompano Beach, Florida. However, the corporation documents list the 
principal address listed for the corporation in Boca Raton, Florida. The Petitioner has not provided information to allow 
us to determine that the current principal address is within an economically distressed area. 
4 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5