dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 17, 2024 In Re: 31108846 
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 amember of the professions holding an advanced degree, as wel I as anational 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). 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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that she is eligible for or otherwise merits anational interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
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 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. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for 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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver pet1t1ons. Dhanasar states 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. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director's decision did not state whether the Petitioner established her eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 classification. In a request for evidence, the Director indicated that the Petitioner 
qualifies for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.2 We 
agree that the record supports that determination. 
The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Director determined that 
while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, she did not establish 
that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not establish that she is 
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong, or 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 under Dhanasar's third prong. Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver of the labor certification would be 
in the national interest.3 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. 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." Id. 
The Petitioner proposes to establish a financial services consulting business in Florida for which she 
would be its chief executive officer and a financial consultant. The Petitioner's statement indicates 
that her business would provide financial advice to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to 
help improve their productivity and growth. Her business intends to provide "cost-effective 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 
Circuit Court in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
2 To demonstrate she is an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner submitted her diploma, her academic transcript, an 
academic evaluation, and employment verification letters. The record demonstrates that she holds the foreign equivalent 
of a U.S. bachelor's degree followed by more than five years of progressive experience in her specialty. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3). 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
customized solutions" focused on the long-term sustainability of SMEs by improving their business 
costs, tax planning, international growth, organizational structure, and digital marketing strategies. In 
addition to advising SMEs, the business would provide financial education to vulnerable minority 
communities, specifically Latin America immigrants. The trainings would focus on resource and 
expense management; creation of product and service ventures; financial strategies for entrepreneurs; 
investment diversification and improvement; debt reduction; and savings plans for retirement, home 
and vehicle purchases, and children's education. We agree with the Director that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
Even though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor is of national importance. The Director found 
that the Petitioner did not demonstrate her proposed endeavor would extend beyond her business and 
clients to have a potential prospective impact on her field more broadly. The Director further 
determined that the Petitioner did not show how her work in the financial field has "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects" to the 
national or regional economy as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's decision "contains instances of amisunderstanding 
and misapplication of law that go beyond harmless error .... " She contends the decision is flawed 
because it did not fully examine and consider the totality of the evidence submitted with her initial 
petition and with her RFE response which amount to an abuse of discretion, citing Buletini v. INS, 860 
F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994). She claims that the Director's decision erroneously states that no 
evidence was submitted to show her endeavor is of national importance when she did submit 
documentary evidence to prove this element of the petition. She stresses having submitted "no less 
than 12 pieces of objective, documentary evidence with the initial filing" to show her work would 
assist SMEs' administrative and financial consolidation, thereby enhancing U.S. corporate and 
personal finances. Also, she points out that her RFE response included an "additional 17 pieces of 
objective evidence from reputable [U.S.] government and private sector sources" showing the national 
implications of her endeavor to her industry by optimizing SME financial management and providing 
guidelines to improve personal financial literacy of immigrant communities. 
To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance standard, we consider 
not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376.; see also Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 
79- 80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, we disagree with the Petitioner's assessment of the Director's decision. 
Contrary to the Petitioner's claims, the Director did not state that the Petitioner submitted no evidence 
to show her proposed endeavor is of national importance. Instead, the Director acknowledged and 
analyzed various documents, specifically her statements, articles, and recommendation letters, but 
determined overall that the quality of the evidence lacked probative value in supporting her claim that 
the proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
Moreover, the court in Buletini did not reject the concept of examining the quality of the evidence 
presented to determine whether it establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does the Buletini decision 
suggest that USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece 
of evidence. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate 
findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it 
3 
necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 
707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir.1992); see 
also Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. U.S. INS, 984 
F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). We conclude that although the decision does not individually analyze 
each piece of evidence, it reflects the Director's reasoned consideration of the evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director imposed novel criterion outside the precedent 
Dhanasar decision by overemphasizing the geographical scale of the economic benefits of her 
endeavor. She claims that in assessing whether a proposed endeavor is of national importance, 
Dhanasar 's analytical framework avoids overemphasizing its geographical "national scope". 
However, the Petitioner has not pointed to specific instances where the Director overly emphasized 
such geographical scale. Here, the Director evaluated the evidence to determine whether it supported 
her claims that her endeavor has the potential to advance the nation's economic interests. The Director 
properly evaluated the endeavor's potential to employ U.S. workers or for other substantial positive 
economic effects to the nation or to the region of her business, as contemplated by Dhanasar. See 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889-90. 
The Petitioner further argues that her professional business plan "clearly explains the economic 
implications of her proposal" by "creating novel and dynamic approaches to financial management 
for improving business efficiency." In addition, her business will "develop tools for individuals within 
immigrant communities to help them improve their spending habits and financial literacy." She points 
out that her work is key for reducing financial mismanagement in businesses and reducing financial 
inequality in immigrant communities. By working with other experienced professionals and 
educational centers in the industry, the Petitioner will share knowledge and expertise to create more 
comprehensive and effective solutions to ineffective financial management, both for individuals and 
businesses, across the nation." To improve financial efficiencies of Florida businesses, her business 
would analyze the client company's last three years of financial statements to develop a restructured 
tax plan to optimize their business finances. She further claims that her business would create jobs, 
intending to hire eight to ten employees specializing in areas such as tax, finance, international 
business, and life insurance. 
In addition to evaluating the endeavor's broad impact to the field, we noted in Dhanasar 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. Any basic economic activity has the potential to positively 
impact the economy; however, the Petitioner has not offered a sufficiently direct connection between 
her proposed endeavor's activities to provide financial advisor consulting to businesses and immigrant 
communities that would potentially have a demonstratable substantial economic benefit to Florida or 
the nation. Although the Petitioner indicated that her consulting work will create economic benefits 
for her business' clients and employ approximately eight to ten employees, she has not provided 
objective and corroborating details as to how such projections are created, aside from generalized 
claims and statements. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Director ignored evidence that shows her endeavor impacts matters 
that the government has described as having national importance or is the subject of national 
4 
mItIatIves. To support her claim, the Petitioner argues that she submitted articles, industry reports, 
and U.S. government source materials which are "objective and probatory evidence" demonstrating 
the national impact of her endeavor. She claims the industry articles and U.S. government reports 
show the importance of financially strong SMEs and of financial literacy education, specifically 
pointing out U.S. government initiatives aimed at promoting small businesses, entrepreneurs, and 
financial literacy education. The record includes reports and articles relating to the economic 
importance of SM Es; a 2021 profile of small businesses in the United States; mentoring programs and 
policies supporting small businesses; U.S. government support of small businesses post-COVID-19 
through increased lending; guidelines for the U.S. Small Business Administration; a report from the 
Florida Chamber Foundation; the increase in job openings in the United States; use of accounting to 
manage finances; financial managers; national strategies for financial education; and the benefits of 
financial education of vulnerable populations. 
The importance of the U.S. government initiatives is not in dispute, but their overall significance does 
not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular. Support of 
SM Es and the financial literacy of individuals are important to the U.S. economy, but it does not follow 
that an individual providing financial consulting advice to SME clients and immigrant individuals has 
national importance. Working in or establishing a business in an important field is insufficient on its 
own to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the "the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" and consider the endeavor's 
"potential prospective impact." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner does 
not quantify the proposed endeavor's expected impact in the identified areas of concern, or provide 
objective, probative evidence to support her contentions. Although the Petitioner has shown that 
supporting SMEs and minority populations are nationally important issues, she has not demonstrated 
the potential prospective impact of her specific endeavor to such nationally important matters. 
Lastly, the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor has broader implications, either 
economically or from innovations that advance her field that would sufficiently extend beyond her 
financial services consulting work and her clients at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner's statement indicates her business will provide "cost-effective and customized solutions 
to organizations." But the Petitioner has not suggested or shown that her solutions or methodologies 
somehow differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States, as 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. (observing that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances"). The Petitioner must 
support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 
25 l&N Dec. at 376. Outside of the Petitioner's general claims in her statements, the record does not 
suggest that the Petitioner serving as the chief executive officer and financial advisor for her financial 
advisory consulting business would impact the financial advisory services field more broadly. The 
economic and social benefits that the Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors, and the Petitioner 
did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between her proposed financial services consulting 
work and the claimed results. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, and therefore she has not demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the 
5 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve her appellate arguments regarding her 
eligibility under the second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting 
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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 
{BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6