dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 22, 2024 In Re: 34342468 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification for the 
Beneficiary, an accounting manager, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Beneficiary is a professional holding an advanced degree and her proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's endeavor is of national importance, that 
she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, 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 Christa'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, 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 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; 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that it develops, constructs, owns, and operates solar distributed generation 
systems with a focus on community solar and commercial solar markets to provide renewable energy 
solutions. The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary's employment as an accounting manager is 
critical to the company's success in the solar energy sector by ensuring fiscal responsibility, adherence 
to regulatory standards, and proficient management of financial opportunities. The Petitioner also 
noted that the potential prospective impact of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor is significant due 
to its contribution to furthering the development of solar and battery storage plants and the generation 
of clean energy across the United States, and a significant potential to employ U.S. workers. 
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 Director acknowledged that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. The 
Director determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's proposed 
endeavor is of national importance, and that, the Beneficiary is well-positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor, and, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer 
requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates previous statements made in the initial petition. 
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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As it relates to the 
Beneficiary's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
Further, "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. The broader implications of the proposed endeavor, national and/or international, 
can inform us of the proposed endeavor's national importance. That is not to say that the implications 
are viewed solely through a geographical lens. Broader implications can reach beyond a particular 
proposed endeavor's geographical locus and focus. The relevant inquiry is whether the broader 
implications apply beyond just narrowly conferring the proposed endeavor's benefit. And 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. 
Moreover, to evaluate whether the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. In 
2 
Dhanasar, we determined 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. We recognize the 
overall value of providing accounting management services for solar energy projects; however, the 
evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's undertaking stands to have an impact 
beyond the organizations and clients she would serve. Specifically, the Petitioner provides support 
letters detailing the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor and the essential duties in managing the 
accounting and financial duties to develop solar and battery storage plants; however, the record does 
not establish with specific, probative information how the Beneficiary's particular services would have 
broader implications beyond her company and clients' growth and possible ripple effects to companies 
working with the Petitioner. The record does not establish the Beneficiary has plans to introduce novel 
methodologies or techniques that may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the field 
or industry. Here, the record does not show through supporting documentation how her services stand 
to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's specific endeavor has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our 
nation. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has national 
importance because the endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers and have a 
substantial positive economic effect. The Petitioner contends that the proposed endeavor can 
prospectively employ 700 U.S. workers in the roles of electricians, engineers, performance analysts, 
operations specialists, portfolio managers, office administrators, scientists, project managers, auditors, 
technicians, lawyers, foremen, and landscapers. While the Petitioner claims that the proposed endeavor 
has growth potential, they have not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or 
national economy resulting from their undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, although the Petitioner asserts 
that the Beneficiary's endeavor will generate significant employment and create a substantial number of 
indirect job opportunities, they have not offered sufficient evidence that their endeavor offers a 
substantial economic benefit through employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity. Outside 
of statements made by the Petitioner, the petitioner does not provide corroborating evidence of the 
claimed 700 employees that could potentially find employment due to the proposed endeavor. The 
Petitioner must support all assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation directly attributable to the Beneficiary's future work, the record does not show 
that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Beneficiary's endeavor would 
reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar . Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by 
the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, the Beneficiary is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
acknowledge the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to the second and third prongs of Dhanasar but, 
having found that the evidence does not establish the Beneficiary's eligibility as to national 
importance, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the remaining Dhanasar 
prong. 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 of 
L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
the applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the proposed endeavor has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 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