dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting And Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 10, 2024 In Re: 30185360 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an accounting, financial, and tax consultant, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l l 53(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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement 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 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. 
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). 
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 I&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 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree in accounting from a Colombian university in 2004. 
According to the Petitioner's resume, she has worked in Colombia as an accounting, financial, and tax 
consultant and owner of since 2007. The record shows that in July 
2022, shortly before filing the instant petition, the Petitioner formed __________ 
based inl IFlorida. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Therefore, the primary issue before us 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. 
Regarding the national interest waiver, 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. 
The Petitioner's initial cover letter stated: 
[The Petitioner], a certified public accountant with extensive practical and academic 
experience in economics, accounting, and finance, endeavors to strengthen the American 
economy by providing accounting, financial and tax consulting services for small and 
medium enterprises (SMEs). 
SMEs constitute a significant part of the American economy and are a key engine of 
economic growth and job creation. The proposed endeavor has, therefore, the express 
objective of enhancing business and entrepreneurial opportunities for American society, 
as well as contributing to the overall economic health of the state. 
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 is 
discretionary in nature). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a "Personal Statement" indicating: 
My passion is to work with and for entrepreneurs, promoting the implementation of 
practices that are legal for the State and that allow improving their results, income, and 
quality of life for their partners, their families, and employees, while complying with the 
increasingly demanding requirements of the current market, and the tax laws of each 
country. For this reason, I wish to use my experience and my expertise to support the 
SME sector in the United States. 3 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner's cover letter claimed that her 
proposed endeavor has substantial merit and is nationally important because it addresses the 
importance of SMEs to the overall health of the American economy, a matter that she argues has been 
explicitly supported by federal government initiatives such as "the [2021] American Jobs Plan ... and 
the Made in America Tax Plan," aimed at "bettering the financial capabilities of SMEs." However, 
the fact that a petitioner is qualified for and performs in a position in an industry or sector that is the 
subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of 
a specific endeavor. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential prospective impact of her 
specific endeavor in that area of national importance. 
Further, the Petitioner provided a "Statement on the Action Plan in the United States" providing: 
My proposal is to take advantage of my extensive work experience in Public 
Accounting and the studies carried out in financial analysis and taxes which has helped 
me to obtain professional criteria when making decisions or in guiding organizations 
to make appropriate decisions not only of investment, but also in the ideas to develop 
and the consequences that a wrong decision entails towards third parties. In addition to 
this, that they do not incur through ignorance in money laundering. 
Moreover, the Petitioner submitted what she described as a "National Interest Statement" indicating: 
[M]y focus residing in the United States is to advise and support medium and small 
businesses that are 65% of the U.S. economy so that they are permanently aligned with 
the laws and regulations, as well as the natural persons who own these companies, 
because this guarantees the line of fiscal and tax execution, as well as the collection of 
the U.S. treasury. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. 
However, for the reasons discussed below, the Director determined, and we agree, that the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director 
3 The Petitioner's initial documentation also included letters from clients of her firm in Colombia, praising her services as an 
accounting and tax consultant. But the authors of the letters do not address the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
In addition, the Petitioner's experience and abilities in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
3 
"fail[ed] to discuss all elements of the evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response" 
in support of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 4 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Although she provided 
evidence relating to a wide range of topics, such as the importance of SMEs to the national and local 
economies, federal assistance and other sources of capital for SMEs, and national security concerns 
that impact SMEs, as previously stated, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of 
her specific, proposed endeavor of owning and operating __________ in I I 
Florida, rather than the importance of particular industries or fields. 5 
In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that 
"[aa ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated 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." Id. 
at 890. 
In addition, under the national importance element, the Petitioner emphasized her "more than 20 years 
of experience . . . . as a consultant and adviser to businesses and companies, advising them in tax, 
financial, administrative and accounting areas." However, the Petitioner's experience, skills, and 
abilities in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific 
endeavor she proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
As stated, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the documentation submitted does not demonstrate how the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor largely influences the field and rises to the level of national 
importance. In Dhanasar, we determined the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level 
of having national importance because they would not impact the field more broadly. Id. at 893. 
Likewise, the record does not show through supporting documentation how the proposed endeavor 
stands to sufficiently extend beyond its customers, to impact the accounting, financial, and tax 
consulting industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
Finally, the record contains the Petitioner's business plan for __________ However, 
the Petitioner did not establish how the business plan's claimed financial and employment projections, 
even if credible or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or otherwise offer 
substantial positive economic effects for our nation. The included financial projections estimate that 
the company will have total projected revenues of $1,600,000, payroll expenses of $1,026,046, a net 
4 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate more to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than 
the national importance part. 
4 
I 
profit of 162,324, and will generate $153,907 in payroll tax revenue in its fifth year of operations. 
Here, the Petitioner did not show how these figures translate into "substantial positive economic 
effects." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
Similarly, although the business plan claims the creation of 13 new jobs within 5 years, the Petitioner 
did not establish that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to the 
IFlorida area or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. While she submitted evidence indicating that portions of the I I Florida 
region are located in distressed areas and classified as opportunity zones, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate the significance of the creation of 13 jobs to the unemployment rate or how such jobs 
would offer substantial positive economic effects for the I I Florida area or our nation through 
employment levels, business activity, or related tax revenue. 
Further, the business plan indicates that the Petitioner's company would result in indirect employment 
but these statements are not supported by financial projections. Although the proposed endeavor may 
benefit the clients that engage the Petitioner's company, the record does not sufficiently show that 
such benefits, either individually or cumulatively, would rise to the level of national importance. 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met her burden of proof to establish that she 
meets the first prong of the Dhanasar national interest framework. Although the Director concluded 
that the Petitioner had demonstrated her eligibility under the second prong 6 but not the third prong of 
the Dhanasar framework, detailed discussion of the remaining prongs cannot change the outcome of 
this appeal. Therefore, we reserve those issues and will dismiss the appeal as a matter of discretion. 7 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude she has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits 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 We note that on page three of her decision the Director concluded the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance her 
proposed endeavor, without identifying or analyzing the evidence on which she based this finding. However, on page five 
of the decision, the Director stated that "the Petitioner was not found to be well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor." 
7 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). 
5