dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting And Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 1, 2024 In Re: 30185456 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an accounting and financial services company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of 
the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 
203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). 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 although the Beneficiary 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, the Petitioner 
had not established 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. 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate a beneficiary's 
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. Next, a petitioner must then demonstrate that a beneficiary merits a discretionary waiver of the 
job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) provides that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 
grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
1 See also 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 to be 
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the 
Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor under 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
The Petitioner stated on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, that the Beneficiary 
intends to work in the United States as a finance specialist and consultant. In a personal statement 
submitted with the petition, the Beneficiary stated that he founded his own company,.__ _____ ___,
I I "to provide tailormade accounting and financial consulting services characterized 
by excellence, transparency, and professionalism." 2 He further stated that he plans to offer services in 
tax preparation, tax planning, accounting, strategic business planning, and incorporation. 
The Petitioner also submitted a copy of the business plan for the Beneficiary's company, testimonial 
letters, an expert opinion letter, and copies of industry articles and reports in support of the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), noting that while the Petitioner's evidence was 
sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and that he is 
well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, the record as initially constituted was insufficient 
to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor had national importance. Specifically, the Director 
determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would 
impact the regional or national population at a level consistent with national importance. As a result, 
the Director requested a detailed description of the endeavor in order to evaluate eligibility for a 
national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted an updated personal statement for the Beneficiary, which 
reasserted that the accounting and tax preparation services he will provide through his company are of 
national importance. The Petitioner also submitted an updated business plan for the Beneficiary's 
company, a new expert opinion letter, and letters from clients in support of the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
2 The record contains documentation relating to the Petitioner's formation of this company, including its Articles of 
Incorporation (Florida) and its IRS Employer Identification Number. 
2 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that although the proposed endeavor had substantial 
merit, the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's work would 
impact the regional or national population at a level consistent with national importance. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the benefits of the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. 
employment would reach beyond his clients to affect his field or the United States more broadly. On 
appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director's decision was erroneous, and asserts that the Director 
erred by applying a "higher standard of proof ' when evaluating the national importance element of 
Dhanasar's first prong and by not analyzing the totality of the evidence, including the Beneficiary' s 
personal statements, expert letters, testimonial letters from clients, and probative research. 
With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that their petition meets 
each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I& N Dec. at 375-76. In other words , a petitioner must show that what they claim is 
"more likely than not" or "probably" true. 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. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 
77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, the Director thoroughly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and 
weighed the evidence to evaluate whether the Petitioner had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that the Beneficiary meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
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 noncitizen proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Generally, we look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a petitioner's work. The Petitioner 
submitted information about the COVID pandemic's effect on financial advice businesses, the value 
of proper tax planning for businesses, the U.S. financial services industry, STEM careers in the 
financial and accounting fields, and unemployment rates for those with bachelor's degrees and those 
in the financial industry. In addition, the Petitioner provided articles discussing tax planning as a part 
of a company's risk management strategy, the benefit of accounting in the public sector, federal STEM 
education initiatives, roles and value of accounting in business, and slowed hiring among small 
businesses. The Petitioner also submitted information about U.S. relations with Brazil, the job outlook 
for financial managers, a talent shortage for business-minded professionals , the COVID pandemic 's 
effect on the client-advisor relationship, strategies for improving STEM education, and U.S. monetary 
policy. While we note that this documentation supports the Director's determination that the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit, it does not establish that the endeavor has national importance. We 
recognize the value of financial planning services; however, merely working in an important field is 
insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
Similarly, the Beneficiary's personal statements emphasize the value of financial and tax planning 
services instead of focusing on the prospective impact of his specific endeavor. While the 
Beneficiary 's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable financial and accounting services for 
his company's clients, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Moreover, 
while he indicates that his proposed endeavor will stimulate the economy by creating jobs and revenue, 
neither the Petitioner nor the Beneficiary point to any corroborating evidence that would directly link 
3 
the specific endeavor to the overall economy's growth. Assertions must be supported with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 893. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor 
stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact the financial consulting 
field, the accounting and financial services industries, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner provided recommendation letters from the Beneficiary's former employers and clients 
who discuss his accounting skills, knowledge, and financial activities, and attest to the quality of his 
work. In addition, the Petitioner presented contracts with several Florida businesses reflecting that 
they had engaged the Beneficiary's financial consulting services. 3 Although the letters praise his 
qualifications and professional accomplishments, the Beneficiary's skills, expertise, and abilities 
relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." See id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that 
the Beneficiary proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s fust prong. 
The Petitioner also submitted two advisory opinions on behalf of the Beneficiary. The first, from an 
accounting professor atl !states that the Beneficiary's proposed work is of 
national importance due to the roles of a financial consultant, the economic value of financial 
consultants, the effect of COVID-19 on the finance industry, the societal impact of the finance 
industry, and U.S. Government legislature pertaining to the finance industry. The issue here, however, 
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. at 889. 
Additionally, we note the professor's assertion that as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the "dire need 
for financial advisors is apparent." We are not persuaded by the professor's claim that the Beneficiary's 
proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of professionals in his industry, as 
there is no indication that his proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed 
national shortage. Further, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. 
Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
We also reviewed the opinion letter from a professor of finance atI I The professor 
discusses the Beneficiary's skills and abilities as a financial consultant, speculates on how his services 
can potentially improve business practices and improve productivity of companies, and notes that the 
Beneficiary's company has several current contracts for the provision of financial services. The 
professor does not, however, offer any persuasive detail concerning the Beneficiary's proposed 
endeavor or how his endeavor's impact would extend beyond the companies with which he has current 
contractual obligations or those that he will serve in the future. 
3 The Petitioner's evidence also includes corporate filing records for seven South Florida companies for which he claims 
to have provided consulting services. 
4 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 
l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988) (holding that the immigration service may reject or afford less 
evidentiary weight to an expert opinion that conflicts with other information or "is in any way 
questionable."). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters from experts supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, the letters from the professors and the 
Beneficiary's employers and clients do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does 
the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Beneficiary's specific proposed 
work as an operator of a financial consulting company offers broader implications in the fields of 
finance or accounting that rise to the level of national importance. 
We noted in Dhanasar that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and 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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Although the Petitioner recounts 
the value and importance of the Beneficiary's financial consulting services and its general impact on 
business growth, Dhanasar requires us to focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake," not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual 
will work. Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner did not provide evidence to demonstrate how the Beneficiary's business operations will 
have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. The business plan includes industry and market analyses, information about his 
company and its services, financial forecasts and projections, marketing strategies, a discussion of the 
Beneficiary's work experience, and a personnel plan. Regarding future staffing, the business plan 
anticipates the Beneficiary's company having five full-time employees by its fifth year of operations. 
However, the plan did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for 
these employees. In addition, while the business plan offers sales projections of $282,000 in year one, 
$338,400 in year two, $406,080 in year three, $487,296 in year four, and $584,755 in year five, neither 
the Petitioner nor the Beneficiary adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated. 
The record does not support that the direct creation of five jobs or the expected revenue generated by 
the company will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the national importance 
element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Specifically, the Petitioner has not shown that 
the future staffing levels and business activity of the Beneficiary's company stands to provide 
substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. While the sales forecast for the company 
indicates that the Beneficiary's company has growth potential, it does not demonstrate that the benefits 
to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
In addition, although the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's company provides employment 
opportunities to individuals in the United States, it has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where 
the Beneficiary's company operates is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant 
population of workers in that area, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a 
substantial economic benefit through employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity. 
5 
Accordingly, the Beneficiary's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
Finally, we note the Petitioner's submission of two of our non-precedent decisions on appeal, in which 
each petitioner sought classification as an individual of extraordinary ability and we sustained the 
appeals. First, these two petitioners sought employment-based first preference (EB-1) immigrant 
classification, which is different from the EB-2 immigrant classification sought by the Petitioner on 
behalf of the Beneficiary in the instant case. Second, neither decision was published as a precedent 
and, therefore, these decisions do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the 
individual case and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the 
issues considered, and applicable law and policy. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has national 
importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, the Beneficiary is not eligible for a 
national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding the Beneficiary's eligibility under the remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. 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 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).4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary meets the requisite first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that it has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary is 
eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 We note the Petitioner 's assertion on appeal that the Director disregarded the regulation contained in 20 C.F.R. § 656.3, 
making it legally impossible for a business owner to file a labor certification on his or his own behalf. Since the identified 
basis for this decision is dispositive of the appeal, we will reserve this issue for future consideration should the need arise. 
See Bagamasbad , 429 U.S . at 25-26; see also L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. at 516, n.7. 
6