dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 14, 2023 In Re: 27467086 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an accounting consultant, 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 the Petitioner was eligible for, and merited as a matter of discretion, a national interest 
waiver. 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 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 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree . A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences , arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) . 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2) , https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
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 T&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 3, 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 State 
TT. EB-2 CLASSTFTCATTON 
The Petitioner claimed eligibility for the EB-2 classification as both a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability. While the Director stated that 
the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree in her request for 
evidence (RFE)4, she did not include a conclusion regarding the underlying classification in her 
decision. We will therefore analyze the Petitioner's eligibility under both provisions of the EB-2 
classification. 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The record includes a copy of a "title of public accountant" diploma issued to the Petitioner by theD 
I IUniversityl IColombia on September 16, 2008. While the Petitioner did 
not submit official transcripts related to this degree, she did submit an educational evaluation which 
states that this is a five-year program and is equivalent to bachelor's degree in accounting from an 
accredited institution in the United States. This evidence establishes that the Petitioner holds the 
foreign equivalent of a United States baccalaureate degree. 5 
As the evidence does not show that the Petitioner holds a United States degree above that of 
baccalaureate, or a foreign equivalent degree, she must establish that she has at least five years of 
progressive, post-baccalaureate work experience in her specialty. The record includes a letter from 
the general manager of I I which states that she held the position of 
3 See also Poursina v. USCJS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
4 The Director stated in her RFE that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
because she holds the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university in the United 
States, but did not mention the additional regulatory requirement of at least five years of progressive, post-baccalaureate 
work experience in her field. 
5 The record also includes evidence that the Petitioner received a "title of specialist in tax inspection" diploma in September 
2015, which the evaluation states is the equivalent of one year of post-graduate study from an accredited U.S. institution. 
As this is not the foreign equivalent of a United States degree above that ofbaccalaureate, it does not qualify as an advanced 
degree. 
2 
public accountant with this company from January 10, 2007 to January 10, 2021. While this letter 
includes a description of the Petitioner's job duties, it does not state that the position was full-time. In 
addition, the Petitioner submitted partially translated documents which she describes as tax returns for 
the years 2018 and 2019 which show that she deducted costs as an "independent worker," indicating 
that the Petitioner was self-employed. This evidence, taken together with the missing information in 
the employment letter, counters the Petitioner's statement on ETA Form 9089 that she worked 40 
hours per week for this employer. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). 
As the Petitioner did not submit further evidence of her post-baccalaureate work experience, she has 
not established that she is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
B. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
The Petitioner claimed to meet five of the six evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) to 
show that she is an individual of exceptional ability. Per the analysis below, we conclude that she 
does not meet the initial evidence requirement of at least three of the criteria. 
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, 
or similar award ji-om a college, university, school, or other institution of learning 
relating to the area ofexceptional ability; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
As noted above, the Petitioner holds a title of public accountant degree, issued by the._l______. 
University! Iin 2008. She also earned a title of specialist in tax inspection diploma in 
September 2015. She therefore meets this criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the 
alien has at least ten years offitll-time experience in the occupation for which he or 
she is being sought; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
Here the Petitioner relies upon the same letter from I I described above, which does not 
indicate whether her work experience was full-time. It therefore does not show that she gained at least 
ten years of full-time experience as an accountant, and she does not meet this criterion. 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) 
As evidence that she possesses a license to practice her profession, the Petitioner submitted a copy of 
her "professional card" from the Central Board of Accountants in Colombia. A letter from that 
organization verifies her registration and continuing valid status as March 2022, and information from 
its website states that it is the governing body of the accounting profession in Colombia and oversees 
the registration and disciplinary actions of accountants. This evidence is sufficient to establish that 
she meets this criterion. 
3 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other renumeration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
The Petitioner's 2018 and 2019 tax documents, briefly discussed above, show that she earned gross 
salaries of $55,013,000 COP and $61,415,000 COP, respectively. For purposes of comparison, she 
also submitted a report obtained from the Economic Research Institute dated April 12, 2022, which 
states that accountants inl IColombia earn an average gross salary of $39,004,471 COP, while 
with eight or more years of experience earn an average of $48,355,904 COP. 
While this evidence shows that the Petitioner's earnings in those years exceeded the average salary of 
accountants in I lat the time of filing, it does not show how her earnings compared with those of 
top earners in her field. This is especially the case as based on the record, her earnings should be 
compared to that of the senior level accountants. Accordingly, we conclude that the record is 
insufficient to establish that her salary demonstrates exceptional ability. 
Evidence ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted two reference letters. We note that such letters, 
written for the purpose of supporting a petition for immigration benefits, are generally less probative 
than evidence which contemporaneously recognizes a petitioner for their achievements and 
contributions. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The 
first, from a former employer, describes her work as an accounting assistant beginning in 1995 and 
moving up to director of the company's accounting department. While the writer lauds the Petitioner's 
work performance for this company, the letter does not indicate that she received recognition for 
achievements and significant contributions to the accounting industry or profession. 
The second letter, from the general manager of a construction company, also appears to be from a 
former employer, but does not provide dates of employment and only a brief description of the 
Petitioner's duties. As the letter focuses more on her positive personality traits and work habits and 
does not describe specific achievements or contributions to the accounting profession, it is of minimal 
evidentiary value in meeting this criterion. 
For these reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets the initial evidentiary requirements for 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability by meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). We thus need not conduct a final merits determination of whether 
the totality of the evidence establishes that she is recognized for having a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the accounting field. Nevertheless, we have 
reviewed all of the evidence submitted by the Petitioner and conclude that it does not establish that 
she possesses the heightened level of expertise required for the requested classification. While she 
has completed relevant education and training and has experience working as an accountant, the 
4 
evidence does not reflect that she has been recognized as standing above her peers to a significant 
extent. The evidence shows that the Petitioner has taken on responsibilities and duties commensurate 
with her education and experience in the field of accounting, but not that her level of expertise has 
been recognized as significantly above that ordinarily held by an experienced accountant. As such, 
she has not established that she is an individual of exceptional ability. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
The Petitioner has not established her eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, and she therefore does not qualify for the EB-2 
classification. Because of this, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver of that classification's 
job offer requirement. We will nevertheless briefly review her proposed endeavor under the first prong 
of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as an accounting specialist in the United States. In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), she submitted a personal plan in which she 
indicated that she will register a company in Florida that will offer accounting consultancy services to 
small businesses. These services are to include accounting, financial, and tax planning services, and 
she states that she will also publish free written and audiovisual content offering financial tips. She 
plans to rent commercial space, create a company website and social media presence, and hire up to 
seven employees within two years after establishing her company. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In her decision, the Director concluded that the evidence was sufficient to show that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor is of substantial merit. Based upon the evidence concerning the accounting 
profession and the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy, both of which are directly tied 
to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, we agree that her plan to offer accounting consulting services 
for small businesses is of substantial merit. 
Turning to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the Director determined that 
the Petitioner had not established how her proposed consultancy business would have broader 
implications on the field of accounting, or that it would have a potential prospective impact on the 
national economy. On appeal, the Petitioner makes essentially the same arguments as she did when 
responding to the Director's RFE. She stresses that because she will be starting her own company, 
the impact of her services will not be limited to a single employer. And by expanding the online 
presence of her business, she will market to and serve clients nationwide, which will make the benefits 
of her proposed endeavor significant to the United States. 
However, as we stated in Dhanasar, prospective impact is not evaluated solely in geographic terms. 
Rather, it is the broader implications of a proposed endeavor that determine its national importance. 
Id. The Petitioner has not shown that her plan to offer her services to clients across the country would 
5 
raise the potential prospective impact of this work to that of national interest, because she has not 
demonstrated that this would have broader implications for the U.S. economy or the accounting field. 
Further, she has not established that her provision of those services to her prospective clients would 
have any potential prospective impact beyond those clients. Although she asserts that her direct 
contributions to her small business clients "will trickle down into the economy," the record does not 
show that her endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial 
positive economic effects. Id. at 890. While her statement projects an annual revenue of more than 
$500,000 and employment of six or seven employees by the end of the business' second year, the basis 
for these projections is not apparent, as the plan lacks sufficient analysis. Further, the Petitioner has 
not established that even if the projections were well supported, this level of activity would be 
sufficient to show a substantial positive economic effect. 
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor 
is of national interest, and she therefore has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
A petitioner must meet all three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework to establish 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 the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the 
Dhanasar's second and third 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 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 
The Petitioner has not established that she is eligible for the EB-2 classification, either as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. In addition, 
she has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor is of national importance, and she is therefore 
not eligible for a national interest waiver. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6