dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 23, 2024 In Re: 33172027 
Appeal of Nebraska 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 either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of 
exceptional ability, 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 
Petitioner had established her eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, the record did not establish that 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 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 l&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: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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 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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889 
II. EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
As a preliminary matter, to establish that the Petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree for EB-2 
classification purposes, her petition must be accompanied by an official academic record evidencing 
a U.S. advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). "Advanced 
degree" means a U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a 
baccalaureate. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the 
equivalent of a master's degree. Id. The Petitioner therefore may alternatively establish that she holds 
an advanced degree for purposes of EB-2 classification by presenting an official academic record 
evidencing a U.S. baccalaureate or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters 
from current or former employer(s) showing at least five years of progressive post-degree experience 
in the specialty. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l). 
The Petitioner has not established that she has a U.S. or foreign equivalent advanced degree, or that 
she has a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree, as she claims.2 We therefore withdraw 
the Director's determination that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as "a member of 
the professions holding a bachelor's degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in field of specialty." 3 
As evidence that she holds the U.S. equivalent of a bachelor's degree, the Petitioner submitted a copy 
of her Titulo de Tecn6logico en Contraduria Financiera issued in September 2009 and her Titulo de 
Contador Publico, Title of Public Accountant issued in November 2013. Both were issued by the 
in Colombia. The Petitioner also offered academic 
transcripts from for each of these degrees, and an independent evaluation explaining and attesting 
to the claimed educational equivalency of her Title of Public Accountant certificate. 
In this evaluation, the author noted that "the coursework required by the I I Titulo de Contador 
Publico program is substantially similar to the required course work leading to a Bachelor's Degree 
from an accredited institution of higher learning in the United States." When concluding that the 
Petitioner had obtained "the equivalent of a Bachelor's Degree in Accounting from an accredited 
institution of higher education in the United States," the evaluator also considered factors including 
"the number of years of course work" required for the Titulo de Contador Publico. However, the 
evaluator does not indicate the duration of the Titulo de Contador Publico program considered when 
reaching this conclusion. We note that the academic transcript underlying this degree in the record 
2 The Petitioner does establish that she has five years of progressive experience in her specialty. 
3 The Petitioner also claimed eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. However, 
because the Director concluded that the Petitioner was eligible as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 
the Director did not address this in denying the petition. 
2 
reflects a course work duration of two years, in contrast to a U.S. baccalaureate degree, which 
generally requires four years of education. See Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1977). 
The evaluator also concluded that the Petitioner "completed a prior Associate' s-level degree which 
contributed to the equivalency" of the Petitioner's Titulo de Contador Publico. However, the 
pertinent regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) requires a bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree, 
which means individuals cannot combine experience, training or education to supplement the three­
year education degree to equate to a four-year education degree. See SnapNames.com, Inc. v. Chertoff, 
2006 WL 3491005 (D. Or. 2006) (where the beneficiary is required to hold a bachelor's degree or a 
foreign equivalent, a single degree is required). 
We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign education as an advisory opinion. 
Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we may discount or give less weight to 
that evaluation. Id. 
Regarding the Petitioner's Titulo de Tecn6logico en Contraduria Financiera (Title of Technologist in 
Financial Accounting), the academic transcript accompanying this certificate indicates that the 
Petitioner received this degree after three years of study. The Electronic Database for Global 
Education (EDGE), which we consider to be a reliable source of information on foreign credential 
equivalencies 4, also indicates that a Tftulo de Tecn6logo "is awarded after completion of 3 - 3 ½ years 
of study at a[n] instituto tecnol6gico (technical institute)" and that it "represents attainment of a level 
of education comparable to 3 - 3 ½ years of university study in the United States. Credit may be 
awarded on a course-by-course basis."5 Accordingly, this evidence is insufficient to demonstrate, by 
a preponderance of the evidence, that the Petitioner's Title of Technologist in Financial Accounting is 
equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree, which generally requires four years of education. See 
Matter ofShah, 17 I&N Dec. at 244. 
Considering the foregoing, the Petitioner has not established that she qualifies for the EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. As the identified reason 
for dismissal is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve, the 
Petitioner's remaining argument concerning her eligibility for EB-2 classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4 See Confluence Intern., Inc. v. Holder, Civil No. 08-2665 (DSD-JJG), 2009 WL 825793 (D. Minn. Mar. 27, 2009); Tisco 
Group, Inc. v. Napolitano, No. 09-cv-10072, 2010 WL 3464314 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2010); Sunshine Rehab Services. 
Inc. No. 09-13605, 2010 WL 3325442 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2010). See also Viraj, LLC v. Holder. No. 2:12-CV-00127-
RWS, 2013 WL 1943431 (N.D. Ga. May 18, 2013). 
5See https://www.aacrao.org/edge/countly/credentials/colombia for information regarding the education system in 
Colombia and credential equivalencies (last accessed Aug. 30, 2024). 
3 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
The Petitioner cannot qualify for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion without first 
establishing her EB-2 eligibility. Even if we were to consider whether the Petitioner warrants a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion, we agree with the Director's ultimate decision to 
deny this waiver in part because the Petitioner had not established the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor, and therefore that she met the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 6 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she has demonstrated both the substantial merit and the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor. 7 Upon de novo review of the record in its entirety, the Petitioner 
has not done so, as required under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. While we 
do not address all of the evidence in the record individually, we have considered each piece. 
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. Matter ofDhanasar 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner, an accountant, offered a statement with her initial application discussing research 
showing that there are opportunities for United States small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to expand 
into Latin American markets, and opportunities for the application of international financial reporting 
standards (IFRS) to U.S. SMEs. She indicates that her proposed endeavor will "generate the spaces 
to disseminate these concepts in North American SMEs, as the opportunities in Latin America are 
obvious." With her response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a 
second statement explaining that her proposed endeavor is a "consultancy initiative that is not merely 
about adopting accounting systems; it's a strategic approach to empower SMEs to navigate the 
complexity of global landscapes" and that "[w ]ith a focus on regulatory compliance, financial 
transparency, and effective decision-making [sic], this initiative aims to be a catalyst for the growth 
and success of SMEs, thereby fostering a resilient and thriving economic landscape." 
On appeal, the Petitioner first contests the Director's conclusion that she has not "submitted a detailed 
description of the proposed endeavor." She asserts that in both her initial response and in her RFE 
response she has "always referred to the impact that [her] proposed effort would have on small and 
medium-sized business in the United States." In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. Upon review, the record 
does not include evidence of the Petitioner's proposed projects in the United States, or other 
information about the specific consulting work she will undertake in this country beyond the 
statements discussed above. It is therefore insufficient to identify the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that her proposed endeavor has national or even global 
implications within the field of accounting "due to the globalization-driven significant growth in 
6 The Director concluded the Petitioner had demonstrated the proposed endeavor's substantial merit. 
7 The Petitioner also asserts that the record shows that she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and that, 
on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States, thus satisfying the second and third prongs 
of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
4 
international trade and the expansion of companies beyond national borders." She asserts that her 
skills and experience as an accountant will allow her to assist small businesses to grow and to give 
these businesses "access to a global market where companies can expand their reach and participate 
in international value chains, thereby enhancing their competitive and productive capacity." 
Reference letters in the record attest to the Petitioner's skill and prior work experience as an 
accountant. However, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations 
under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." Matter of Dhanasar 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The issue under the first prong is whether the 
Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of her proposed work. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers "by creating new strategic job positions and increased innovation and creativity, 
facilitating productivity growth" in contrast with other small businesses that don't "participate in 
international trade with other economically booming countries in Latin America" because they lack 
professionals with her skill set. She argues that, through this innovation and job growth, her proposed 
endeavor will enhance societal welfare by adding "benefits for both employers and employees in terms 
of income and quality of life, resulting in a healthier economy." Generally, we look to evidence 
documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a petitioner's work. Beyond these assertions on 
appeal, the Petitioner does not offer evidence to sufficiently explain or demonstrate how her proposed 
endeavor would impact employment in the United States or otherwise benefit the regional or national 
economy. Therefore, she has not shown that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting 
from her proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id at 890. Further, absent evidence to show that her proposed endeavor 
would positively impact employment, she has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor would 
enhance societal welfare, as claimed. 
Finally, the Petitioner contends on appeal that her proposed endeavor is of national importance as it 
aligns with the goals of the Coronavirns Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARE) Act, which 
"prioritizes economic relief, especially for small businesses." While the CARE Act may indicate the 
importance to the U.S. government of prioritizing small businesses, it does not specifically show the 
government's interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or similar endeavors. In evaluating national 
importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, we will consider evidence demonstrating 
how a specific proposed endeavor impacts a matter that a government entity has described as having 
national importance or a matter that is the subject of national initiatives. Here the record is not 
sufficient to show how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor impacts small businesses in the United 
States or the field of accounting in a manner rising to the level of national importance. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytic framework, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reason for dismissal is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments 
concerning her eligibility under the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 at 25 (stating 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 ofL-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516 at 526 n. 7 ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
5 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established her eligibility for the EB-2 classification and therefore her 
qualification for a national interest waiver. Even had she done so, the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We therefore find that the Petitioner has 
not established her eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will 
be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis 
for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6