dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 3, 2024 In Re: 30354468 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an accountant, seeks second preference 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. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2); see also section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, 
when it is in the national interest to do so. While neither 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 and states that USCIS may, as a matter 
of discretion, 1 grant a petition if the petitioner demonstrates that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance; (2) the individual is well-positioned to advance their 
proposed endeavor; and, (3) on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United 
States. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, the record did not establish 
any of the three required prongs of the Dhanasar framework and therefore the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. 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 ofChristo's , Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
The Petitioner describes the proposed endeavor as "[ d]evelopment, consulting, and training pertaining 
to [c]ompliance and [f]inancial [s]trategy applied to business administration, as well as providing a 
training and education of financial literacy for Florida high schools . . . . " The Petitioner submitted a 
business plan to establish a financial literacy consulting business. As to the first Dhanasar prong, the 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
the Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is 
discretionary in nature). 
Director concluded that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance. After 
a review of the evidence in the record-including the Petitioner's business plan, an opinion letter, and 
various news articles about financial literacy, financial services, and other topics-the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not show that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond her organization and its clients to impact the industry or field more broadly. The Director also 
concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects. The Director noted, for 
example, that the business plan did not describe the number of employees the business would hire, 
demonstrate a business need to hire additional employees, or otherwise establish substantial positive 
economic effects. The Director also found that the general statements made by counsel in response to 
the request for evidence (RFE) were not supported by evidence. For example, regarding counsel's 
assertions that the proposed endeavor has national importance because it will create job opportunities, 
will enhance societal welfare, and aligns with government initiatives on improving financial literacy, 
the Director found that the various articles and reports submitted to support these claims provide only 
a general analysis of financial literacy, do not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor, and therefore 
do not sufficiently support these assertions. After thorough review, consideration, and analysis, the 
Director similarly concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that she is well-positioned to advance 
the proposed endeavor nor that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United 
States.2 
On appeal, the Petitioner counters that counsel's statements are "meticulously backed by substantial 
evidence" and "firmly grounded in publicly available sources and technical analysis directly relevant 
to the field of endeavor." In support of the national importance of the endeavor, the Petitioner 
primarily repeats the same claims made before the Director regarding the endeavor's potential to 
improve financial literacy, create jobs, and enhance societal welfare and its alignment with U.S. 
government priorities. However, the Petitioner does not overcome the specific deficiencies noted by 
the Director regarding the lack of support for these claims based upon the evidence in the record. 
Although the Petitioner disagrees with the Director's statement that counsel's assertions are 
insufficiently supported by evidence, the Petitioner does not discuss the evidence in the record with 
specificity, explain how it supports counsel's claims, or otherwise overcome the Director's 
conclusions. For example, the Petitioner does not address the Director's specific finding that the 
general articles and reports discuss only financial literacy and related topics, rather than the proposed 
endeavor and its national importance. 
Following review of the record, we adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding 
the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 
872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the 
practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other 
circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight 
circuit courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long 
as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). The Director's decision discussed and 
analyzed the Petitioner's documentation consistent with our precedent decision in Matter ofDhanasar. 
2 Because we agree with the Director's conclusions as to the national importance element of the first Dhanasar prong, and 
because, as we discuss below, this is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not summarize the Director's decision 
as to the second and third prongs here. 
2 
On appeal, rather than specifically identifying any errors in law or fact in the decision, the Petitioner 
merely states that the Director was incorrect and repeats the same unsupported assertions previously 
made without overcoming the deficiencies noted by the Director. These assertions, however, do not 
overcome the basis for the denial and are insufficient to establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's endeavor. 
Because the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve our opinion regarding whether the record demonstrates the 
Petitioner's qualification for the EB-2 classification and whether it satisfies the second or third 
Dhanasar prongs. 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 is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3