dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting And Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 30, 2024 In Re: 32159419 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an accountant and professor, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional, as well as a national interest waiver of 
the job offer requirement attached to this classification. 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 the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for 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 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 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: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; 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 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. at 889. 
11. ANALYSIS 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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 arange 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. 
Id. The tenn "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details 
not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to 
undertake specifically within that occupation. For example, while engineering is an occupation, the 
explanation of the proposed endeavor should describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of 
engineering in which the person will work, rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of 
an engineer. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The Director determined that while the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, he did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance as set forth 
under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We agree, for the reasons explained 
below. 
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor is to use his expertise and knowledge gained from 
his professional experience as an accountant/cost analyst and tenure as a professor, teaching 
accounting, economics, management and marketing, to provide consulting services "in areas such as 
human resources, corporate strategy, accounting, and organizational design." He contends that 
because "small businesses have been majorly affected by COVID-19," and are financially fragile due 
to "mass layoffs and closures, the risk of closure with negatively associated lengthy waits to reopen, 
and an un undetermined likelihood of COVID-related disruption," his endeavor "impacts nationally 
important matters and the national economy explicitly by [o]ffering economic convenience and agility, 
as he is able to secure the success of small and medium-sized U.S. companies; [p]romoting growth 
and expansion and driving change with innovation, which thus promotes and drives national economic 
advantage; and, [s]timulating the domestic job market, as enhanced business actions through his own 
business that leads to the generation of new jobs for American workers." He states that his company 
"will be headquartered in Maryland, serving HUBZones area ... part of a U.S. Small Business 
Administration program for small companies that operate and employ people in historically 
underutilized business zones." In addition, the Petitioner's business plan states that during the first 
five years, his company will generate $3.5 million in revenue, create 24 jobs, with $1.95 million paid 
in salaries. The business planalso indicates that within five years, the company will expand from its 
headquarters in I Maryland to offices in Virginia and West Virginia. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "did not give due regard to the following pieces of 
evidence: [his] resume, which outlines his vast experience in the field of endeavor; [his] Business Plan, 
which extensively describes his credentials, expertise, and professional accomplishments, and allows 
2 
concrete projections of the benefits he may offer to the U.S.; [e]vidence of [his] work in the field, 
which demonstrates his vast contributions in his field; [l]etters of recommendation; and [i]ndustry 
reports and articles, demonstrating the national importance of [his] proposed endeavor; as well as the 
steep shortage in the U.S. of professionals with his profile in the field." He further asserts that "the 
benefit generated to the United States from [his] prospective contributions to the management 
consulting sector will be concrete and substantial, even if other U.S. workers are available." 
Here, the record does not show the prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor 
beyond his own clients for which he would provide his services. While the Petitioner asserts that his 
company "will foster increased profitability and efficiency for U.S. companies from several 
industries" as well as "generate jobs for U.S. workers in underserved areas," he has not demonstrated 
how his specific consulting business would help enough clients increase profitability or create enough 
jobs to exert a national economic impact. Specifically, his business plan projects that his company 
will generate $3.5 million in revenue and create 24 jobs during the first five years - these projections 
do not indicate that the business would affect the economy at a regionally or nationally important level. 
Further, his business plan does not demonstrate how his business would benefit an economically 
depressed area or how the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his endeavor 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 
890. In addition, while the Petitioner claims that his company will secure the success of small and 
medium-sized U.S. companies by promoting growth and expansion, driving change with innovation, 
and stimulating the domestic job market, he has not been established this claim through independent 
and objective evidence. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to 
the field have little probative value, 2 and here, the Petitioner has not shown with sufficient evidence 
how his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential clients or the industry or 
fields that his clients are involved in. 
In the present case, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in his 
statements and his business plan, that his business's activities stand to provide substantial economic 
benefits to the region of I I Maryland or the United States, and his, articles/reports, and letters 
of recommendation and are not sufficient to demonstrate his endeavor has the potential to provide 
economic, societal, and security benefits to the United States. Thus, while the Petitioner's 
management consulting services may "contribute" to economic growth, he has not demonstrated that 
his specific business - alone - would have national implications for the U.S. economy, the I I 
region, or the management consulting field. We recognize the importance of the accounting and 
financial services industry and of small businesses to the U.S. economy; however, the economic 
benefits that the Petitioner claims will result from his endeavor depend on numerous factors and the 
Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his proposed business's financial 
services work and the claimed economic results. 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
2 See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
3 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4