dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 19, 2024 In Re: 30362070 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner is an accountant who seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of 
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, 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 determined that despite qualifying for the underlying EB-2 
visa classification as an individual holding an advanced degree, 1 the Petitioner did not establish that a 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
Applying the three-prong analytical framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 
889 (AAO 2016), the Director concluded that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit and the Petitioner demonstrated that he is well-positioned to advance the endeavor, 
the Petitioner did not establish that his endeavor has national importance, or that on balance, waiving 
the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 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 because the Petitioner did not establish that his 
specific proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance 
requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding the third Dhanasar prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary 
1 The record contains a degree certificate and corresponding transcript showing that the Petitioner completed required 
coursework and was awarded a bachelor's degree in accounting sciences in January 2010. The record also contains 
evidence showing that the Petitioner subsequently attained at least five years of progressive experience in his specialty as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-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). 
Further, we adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the national importance 
of the Petitioner's endeavor. See Matter of Burbano, 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). 
In addressing the issue of national importance within the context of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
to own and operate an accounting firm, the Director considered the supporting evidence, such as the 
Petitioner's business plan and industry reports. The Director determined that the projected hiring of 
five foll-time employees in a community with a population of approximately two million people is not 
an indication of the endeavor's significant potential to employ U.S. workers or offer other "substantial 
positive economic effects" at the level contemplated in Matter ofDhanasar. Id. at 890. The Director 
also explained that because the submitted industry reports highlight the importance of the Petitioner's 
field rather than focusing on the proposed endeavor, they do not establish that the endeavor would 
impact the labor shortages discussed in the reports or that the endeavor would have national or even 
global implications within the field of accounting. In sum, the Director determined that the impact of 
the Petitioner's endeavor would not extend beyond the Petitioner's business and clientele to more 
broadly impact the accounting field or create a broad impact at a level that is commensurate with 
having national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not adequately evaluate previously submitted 
evidence. However, the Petitioner does not specify which evidence he feels the Director overlooked 
or explain how such evidence addresses the Director's adverse findings on the issue of national 
importance. The Petitioner also lists previously submitted recommendation letters, but he does not 
discuss how the letters are relevant to the issue of national importance given that they address the 
Petitioner's qualifications and prior work and make no mention of the proposed endeavor. And while 
the Petitioner lists an accountant's capabilities and explains how accountants can benefit their 
employers or clients, this argument unnecessarily centers on the field of the Petitioner's endeavor 
rather than the endeavor itself, which is the focus of a national importance determination. See id. at 
889. The Petitioner in this instance does not provide evidence showing that the benefits from his 
specific endeavor would extend beyond his company and his clients offering such benefits as job 
creation, particularly in an economically depressed area, enhanced societal welfare, or other benefits 
on a broad scale as in Matter ofDhanasar. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not established that the previously submitted evidence demonstrates that his 
endeavor meets the national importance element of the first prong of the analytical framework in 
Matter ofDhanasar. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2