dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 18, 2024 In Re: 31381848 
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 an advanced degree professional, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this classification. 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 Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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 r equirement "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 discretion,1 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 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. at 889. 
11. ANALYSIS 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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 arange 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. The tenn "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details 
not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to 
undertake specifically within that occupation. For example, while engineering is an occupation, the 
explanation of the proposed endeavor should describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of 
engineering in which the person will work, rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of 
an engineer. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The Director determined that while the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, she did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance as set forth 
under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We agree, for the reasons explained 
below. 
The Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor "is to provide financial management services that 
utilize artificial intelligence techniques in order to improve the performance of small and medium­
sized businesses in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic." She states that "[a]ppropriate financial 
management is directly correlated with the success of a business, while financial mismanagement is 
frequently a cause of business failure. Moreover, implementing artificial intelligence and automation 
software into the financial management process allows businesses to accurately and efficiently manage 
their resources without fear of errors." She contends that her "work is necessary for economic 
rebuilding after the pandemic," and ... "also falls in line with the goals of the United States 
government to promote artificial intelligence research for economic development, per the National 
Artificial Intelligence (Al) Initiative Act of 2020." She asserts that she has made significant progress 
toward achieving her proposed endeavor as evidenced by her submission of letters of recommendation 
which "provide proof that she has been recognized as a top-tier professional in the field of finance by 
her peers" and "verifies that her work has had tangible benefits for the economic success of 
multinational corporations." She also maintains that her business plan has "obtained interest from 
potential customers and/or users in the industry," and refers to a letter from a manager at thel I 
I I in Texas, indicating "his desire to work with her again in the United States," and a letter 
from a former chief financial officer ofl Iwho states that "he wishes to work with the Petitioner 
again due to the exceptional work she performed managing I !financial services across Latin 
America." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider the evidence demonstrating the 
national importance of her endeavor, including "numerous reports, articles and government initiatives 
2 
related to the proposed endeavor." She contends that "each piece of evidence has been selected to 
demonstrate the direct and specific alignment of [her] endeavor with key national initiatives and 
objectives" and notes that "the American Jobs Plan ... the Small Business Administration SBIC 
Program ... and the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 ... not only highlight the 
importance of SMEs2 to the U.S. economy and employment but also underscore the national 
government's interest to build a resilient and prosperous national SME sector, in which technology, 
especially Al, is afundamental part of the future success of SM Es and the U.S. economy." She further 
contends that the Director's "assertion that the record does not detail how the endeavor's impact would 
operate on such a large scale as to rise to the level of national importance and benefit the U.S. regional 
or national economy lacks basis, as the impact outlined in the Dhanasar framework does not focus 
solely on a geographical scale." In addition, in response to the Director's determination that she did 
not provide specific details on whether her consultancy would employ any individuals apart from 
herself, the Petitioner notes that "the standard of review for meeting each of the relevant and respective 
prongs in the Dhanasar decision is a preponderance of the evidence standard, and the decision itself 
stipulated that the potential to employ US workers is just an example of a factor that may be 
considered. It is not inherently necessary to meet each of the possible evidentiary examples provided 
in the precedent decision in order to prove that a proposed endeavor is of national importance." 
Here, the Petitioner relies primarily on the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy as well 
as the United States' interest in assisting and strengthening small businesses by leveraging Al in their 
operations. However, this misapplies the Dhanasar framework. While the Petitioner asserts that she 
plans to assist SMEs by implementing Al and automation software into their financial management 
processes, her endeavor does not include any specific plans or demonstrate that the benefits to the 
regional or national economy resulting from her endeavor would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, while she maintains 
that her endeavor aligns with federal initiatives regarding the promotion of Al, the record does not 
indicate by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner would be engaged in activities that 
would actually increase the use of Al capabilities of small and medium-sized businesses. Generalized 
conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value, 3 
and here, the Petitioner has not shown with sufficient evidence how her proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond her potential clients or the industry or fields that her clients are involved 
in. In addition, while the Petitioner claims that by "providing financial solutions that are specific to 
the individualized needs of SMEs, [she] is helping the United States achieve" its goal of promoting 
renewed growth of the small business sector, she has not been established this claim through 
independent and objective evidence. 
In the present case, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in her 
statements and her business plan, that her business's activities stand to provide substantial economic 
benefits to the region of Florida or the United States, and her statements are not sufficient to 
demonstrate her endeavor has the potential to provide economic, societal, and security benefits to the 
United States. We recognize the importance of the accounting and financial services industry as well 
as the impact that Al can have on the economic performance of businesses; however, the Petitioner's 
2 "SME" is a common acronym in the business world, referring to small and medium enterprises that maintain revenues, 
assets, or a number of employees below a certain threshold. 
3 See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
3 
stated intention to provide financial management services with a goal towards promoting the use of 
Al for small businesses, coupled with reports and articles regarding the importance of small businesses 
to the U.S. economy and the impact of Al on these businesses, is insufficient to establish the national 
importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Further, the economic benefits that the 
Petitioner claims will result from her endeavor depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner does 
not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between her proposed business's financial services work 
and the claimed economic results. 
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. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4