dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting / It

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 18, 2024 In Re: 31201035 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an accountant in the field of information technology (IT), seeks employment-based 
second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, he did not establish that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 1 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 l&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. 
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, 2 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
1 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). 
2 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 individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The Petitioner proposed to work as an accountant "providing services in information technology 
applied to taxation and accounting, developing and implementing automation systems in accounting 
processes and financial services for small, medium, and large-sized companies in different sectors." 
The Petitioner stated that he "will positively impact U.S.-based companies by generating results in 
systemic automation in calculating taxes and accessory obligations and in quickness in the accounting 
and operational processes, reducing companies' exposure to tax authorities, fines, and inspections, 
directly impacting operating costs and decision-making processes." In response to the Director's 
request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted a job offer letter from a potential employer seeking to 
employ him as a "collaborator" in the consulting and accounting services sector. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner demonstrated that his proposed endeavor was of substantial 
merit. However, the Director also concluded the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed 
endeavor had national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director erred in their 
determination that he did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor and asserts 
he qualifies for a 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. We look for broader 
implications. An 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 889-890. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that his proposed endeavor goes beyond serving an organization or its 
clients because "[h ]is expertise in addressing complex tax systems, implementing automation, and 
migrating operations to cloud computing systems can significantly impact the entire finance and 
accounting industry." In addition, the Petitioner states that his "track record of solving challenges 
within a dynamic and complex tax system demonstrates that his skills and expertise are far superior to 
those of an average accountant." However, the Petitioner's expertise and skills are relevant to 
Dhanasar 's second prong, which evaluates whether an individual is well positioned to advance a 
proposed endeavor; his prior experience does not establish that his proposed endeavor has national 
importance. See Dhanasar at 888-91. 
The Petitioner further articulated plans to provide training to other professionals in the fields of 
accounting and information technology. The record does not show that this undertaking has broader 
implications in his field, beyond those who participate in his training sessions. While the Petitioner's 
plan to provide training to other professionals in the fields of accounting and information technology 
has merit, he does not sufficiently explain and document that his teaching or instructional activities 
would offer benefits extending beyond his trainees to impact the fields of accounting and information 
technology more broadly. Likewise, in Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching 
2 
activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his 
field more broadly. See id. at 893. 
The Petitioner also did not show that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. The Petitioner 
contends on appeal that his plan "to streamline tax processes, enhance accounting operations, and 
promote cloud computing adoption can lead to cost reduction, operational efficiency, and increased 
profitability for businesses," and therefore, promote economic growth. In addition, the Petitioner 
references his response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) where he claimed he will generate 
positive economic effects because his "proposed endeavor will benefit taxpayers and the IRS by 
providing innovative and efficient accounting information solutions to improve tax administration and 
customer services." But the Petitioner has not suggested or shown that his solutions or methodologies 
differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States, as contemplated 
by Dhanasar. Id. (observing that "[a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, 
because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances"). The Petitioner must support 
his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376. Any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact the economy; however, the 
economic and social benefits that the Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors, and the Petitioner 
did not submit sufficient supporting evidence to establish that his proposed financial services in the IT 
industry would have the claimed impact on taxpayers and the IRS. Without objective evidence 
regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record 
does not show sufficient benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his 
accountant position that would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated 
by Dhanasar. See Dhanasar at 890. 
Finally, the Petitioner also highlights from the RFE response that his proposed endeavor aligns with 
national initiatives, including the National Taxpayer Advocate. However, merely working in an 
important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. Id. at 889. Instead, when determining whether the proposed endeavor has 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 foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Id. Thus, while we acknowledge that the financial services technology 
industry is important, this fact is insufficient to establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. 
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address his eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. 3 The burden 
of proof is on the Petitioner to establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The Petitioner 
has not done so here and, therefore, we conclude that he has not established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
3 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4