dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11091767 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 20, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an accountant, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 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 had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Beneficiary is eligible for a national interest 
waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203 (b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definition: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's 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. 
The third prong requires the 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, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
According to the Petitioner, her "overall proposed endeavor" is: 
[T]o offer my knowledge, experience, and expertise in the fields of accounting, finance, and 
taxation to American companies in a wide array of industries that are seeking to streamline and 
improve their internal accounting and finance processes, and decrease their tax burdens and 
penalties. I will do this by continuing to stay up to date in my field, researching and better 
understanding not only the tax laws and regulations of the United States, but also the most 
advanced and innovative accounting and finance processes. I will then develop and implement 
accounting solutions and tax plans for the benefit of my served companies. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The Director also determined that the Petitioner had established that her proposed endeavor met 
the substantial merit element of the first prong set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. The 
Director's decision then discussed the deficiencies in the submitted evidence and provided a well­
reasoned explanation as to why the Petitioner did not qualify for a national interest waiver. 
Therefore, upon consideration of the entire record, 4 including the arguments made on appeal, we adopt 
and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 26 
I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and 
evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved 
by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided 
the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
On appeal, regarding the national importance element of the first prong under the Dhanasar analysis, the 
Petitioner claims that the Director "erroneously conclude[d] that because [the Petitioner] intends to work 
for one employer that her proposed endeavor will only benefit and will be limited to said employer, but 
fails to address how this will not result in substantial positive impacts." The Petitioner cites to information 
from the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) indicating that accountants are "an 'invaluable 
asset' to a business" and that "[t]hese professionals help companies reduce costs, improve their top line 
and mitigate risks" ( emphasis in original). IF AC also states that "professional management of public 
assets co[ u ]ld, across advanced economies, generate annually more revenues than governments receive 
in corporate tax collections" and that "accounting is essential for the public sector." The Petitioner also 
asserts that "her proposed endeavor includes the sharing of knowledge, thereby teaching junior 
accountants and expanding the benefits beyond the appellant's immediate reach" and that she will be "one 
less expert needed to help non-accounting professionals navigate this complex system." 
While the Petitioner has established the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor, she has not, 
however , offered sufficient information and evidence to demon strate that its prospecti ve impact rises 
to the level of national importance. For example, 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. Similarly, in this matter, the record does not show that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer , its clients and those 
with whom she may share her knowledge to impact the U.S . economy or accounting industry more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Here, 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 
for our nation. Without sufficient documentation to support her claims regarding any projected U.S. 
economic impact attributable to her future work, the record does not establish that benefits to the U.S. 
regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's accounting activities would reach the level 
of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar . Id. at 890. Accordingly, the 
Petitione r' s proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the 
appellate arguments regarding the remaining issues. 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible) . 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not established she is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4