dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 09, 2024 In Re: 33225279 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an account specialist and insurance agent, 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 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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, 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 I&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 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
Id. 
TI. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The Petitioner proposes employment as an account specialist in an insurance agency. The Petitioner 
claims that, upon receipt of permanent resident status, she also intends to obtain her e-file license to 
provide additional accounting services. The Petitioner intends to organize and lead accounting-related 
workshops and seminars and disseminate accounting knowledge through her social media. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
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. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. 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 Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had materially changed from accounting 
specialist as described in her initial filing to insurance agent, e-file provider, and educator as stated in 
her response to a request for evidence (RFE). As the Director found the Petitioner no longer intended 
to pursue her initial endeavor, and she could not work as an e-file provider until gaining permanent 
residence or citizenship, the Director determined the Petitioner had not established the national 
importance of her endeavor. In addition, the Director determined the expert opinion letters submitted 
on the Petitioner's behalf were not sufficient to show her endeavor would have broad implications in 
the field, substantial positive economic effects in the region, would broadly enhance societal welfare, 
or would impact a matter that is the subject of a national initiative. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director erred in determining she changed her proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner acknowledges she is no longer working for the same employer as the time of filing but 
asserts she has only added details of her account specialist endeavor before the Director, including 
advancing her endeavor in the field of accounting as an account specialist and insurance agent, future 
e-file provider, and accounting educator to companies and through social media. However, even ifwe 
accept the Petitioner's endeavor, as articulated through her RFE response and appeal, we find the 
endeavor has substantial merit, but the Petitioner has not demonstrated it rises to the level of national 
importance. 
2 
The Petitioner contends the Director erroneously found she did not benefit the field more broadly, 
even while the Director acknowledged assertions in her letters of support that the Petitioner improved 
knowledge in accounting. Similarly, the Petitioner asserts sharing her accounting knowledge through 
social media or in trainings with her fellow employees at Promise Land Insurance contributes to a rise 
in the levels of knowledge, employee expertise, and client assistance. On appeal, the Petitioner also 
asserts she has a goal of contributing to the "financial literacy" and "access of underrepresented 
communities, such as Hispanic communities." We do not find error in the Director's finding. Namely, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated her contributions to the improvement of accounting knowledge 
and diversity has wider impact beyond her coworkers and clients, and at a level commensurate with 
national importance. In addition, the Petitioner has not shown that sharing accounting knowledge 
through her social media has broader implications for the field of accounting. Dhanasar explains that 
STEM teaching will not necessarily impact the field of STEM teaching more broadly, in a manner 
which rises to the level of national importance. See Matter of Dhanasar at 893. Like teaching, in 
which the benefits generally affect the students taught, the services and training the Petitioner plans to 
provide benefit her employer, clients, and social media viewers. 
The Petitioner contests the Director's analysis of the record, contending a stricter standard of proof 
was applied to her expert opinion letters than the appropriate preponderance of the evidence standard. 
The Petitioner also claims the Director failed to consider her letters of recommendation, letters from 
clients, and employment verification letters in determining whether her proposed endeavor is of 
national importance, instead relying solely upon the personal statement she submitted in her RFE 
response. However, our review of the record reflects the Director considered the relevant evidence 
under the appropriate preponderance of the evidence standard. As discussed above, the Director 
explicitly considered letters of support in the record for the Petitioner, finding these "letters indicate 
that [the Petitioner] performed well on the job, benefited her employers, and their customers, and 
updated/improved knowledge in the accounting area.... " We also note the Director indicated that the 
petition and all supporting evidence were reviewed prior to their denial decision. The Director 
properly considered the Petitioner's employment verification letters and letters of support related to 
her "various professions in accounting," and correctly noted they relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The second prong of the Dhanasar analysis 
examines whether the petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and shifts the 
focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. Id. In addition, the submitted expert opinion 
letter generally asserts the Petitioner's accounting specialist role will bolster the economy, financial 
integrity, and financial literacy within communities. This letter and additional letters of support do 
not specify and establish how exactly the Petitioner's individual work will result in broader 
implications for her field. Similarly, the expert opinion letter indicates the Petitioner's own 
employment as an accounting specialist has "significant potential to employ U.S. workers and has 
other substantial positive economic effect," due to a growing need for accountants. However, this 
statement is related to the importance of the general field of accounting and not the Petitioner's specific 
proposed endeavor to work as an account specialist. Further, the alleged shortage of occupations or 
occupational skills does not render the proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar 
framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department 
of Labor through the labor certification process. The Petitioner does not otherwise explain how the 
record shows that her proposed endeavor has a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or will 
have substantial positive economic effect. Overall, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how her 
endeavor sufficient extends beyond her employer, clients, and any social media viewers to impact the 
3 
field or U.S. economy more broadly, at a level commensurate with national importance. She therefore 
has not satisfied prong one of the Dhanasar framework to establish eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. 
B. Additional Dhanasar Prong 
As our finding on this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve her arguments relating to the Director's adverse determinations of her eligibility under the 
second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(stating that "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 the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4