dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 15, 2023 In Re: 26928553 
Appeal of Texas 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 a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative, as an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. 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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement " 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 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 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree.1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor 's degree or a foreign equivalent 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the [noncitizen] has a degree, 
diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or 
other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing 
that the [noncitizen] has at least ten years of full-time experience in the 
occupation for which he or she is being sought; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession 
or occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the [noncitizen] has commanded asalary, or other renumeration 
for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii).2 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides, "If the above standards do not readily apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility." 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows that the 
petitioner is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered 
in the field. 3 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step 
2 In determining whether an individual has exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act, the possession of a 
degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school or other institution of learning or a license 
to practice or certification for a particular profession or occupation shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of 
such exceptional ability. Section 203(b)(2)(C) of the Act. 
3 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 
analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of evidence 
for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality 
of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 376. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish eligibility for 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 USCIS may, as matter of discretion4, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as an accountant and financial specialist having 
earned a bachelor of accounting sciences from Universidade Iin Brazil in 2013 and a 
course certificate for an MBA in financial management from Iin Brazil in 
2016. The Petitioner indicates that she has worked in the finance and accounting fields. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner established her eligibility as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, however, she did not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and 
thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
We note that in her petition, the Petitioner submitted evidence asserting that she is eligible for the EB-
2 classification either as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual 
of exceptional ability. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established her eligibility for either EB-2 classification. 
A. Member of Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as a professional holding an advanced 
degree, however, the Director did not explain the basis for this determination. After reviewing the 
record, we disagree with the Director's determination. 
The Petitioner demonstrated that she has a foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree with a copy 
of her diploma and academic transcripts from Universidadel Iin Brazil along with an 
academic evaluation. However, although the Petitioner submitted a course certificate and transcripts 
for an MBA in financial management from in Brazil in 2016, the record 
does not demonstrate that this course certificate is an advanced degree "above" that of her bachelor's 
4 See also Poursina v. USClS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 
degree pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). An academic evaluation submitted by the Petitioner states 
that the evaluator reviewed the Petitioner's academic records for her bachelor's degree in accounting 
services and her course certificate for her MBA in financial management, as well as her curriculum 
vitae. The evaluation states that the Petitioner's foreign bachelor's degree in accounting sciences 
completed in 2012 combined with her seven years of professional experience from 2012 to 2019, are 
equivalent to a U.S. master of business administration and financial management. Although the 
academic evaluation indicated review of the Petitioner's course certificate and transcript for her MBA 
in financial management, it did not provide an opinion about it. Therefore, without an evaluation as 
to the U.S. equivalency of the Petitioner's foreign course certificate for the MBA in financial 
management, we are unable to determine whether it is the U.S. equivalent of a degree above that of a 
bachelor's degree. 
In addition, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner has five years of progressive post­
baccalaureate experience in her specialty. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) provides that 
a petitioner present "evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer(s) showing that 
the [petitioner] has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty." 
The Petitioner submitted recommendation letters from individuals she worked with at two of her 
former employers. A letter from an executive director atI IBrazil details the Petitioner's dates of employment from July 2013 to 
August 2015 and her work duties. The letter establishes that the Petitioner has two years and one 
month of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in her specialty. The Petitioner also submitted 
two letters from her former colleagues atl Iindicating her being hired in 2015 and describing 
some of her job accomplishments, including a project she completed in 2017. However, both letters 
do not detail the dates of her employment. Therefore, the letters from the Petitioner's former 
employers do not establish at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience. 
To demonstrate the Petitioner's work experience in her specialty, the Petitioner also submitted a letter 
from her personal accountant. Although her accountant's letter provides details for the Petitioner's 
previous employment, including names of employers, her positions, her work duties, and her dates of 
employment with each employer, the record does not explain why the Petitioner did not submit letters 
from her previous employers, or how the Petitioner's personal accountant since 2020 has knowledge 
of the details of her previous employment. Experience letters are required initial evidence pursuant to 
the regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1). When required evidence is unavailable, the regulations 
permit the submission of other documentation relating to the petitioner's experience. See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(g)(1). There is no evidence in the record addressing the unavailability of experience letters from 
the Petitioner's former employers in the manner specified in the regulations. Therefore, the letter from 
the Petitioner's personal accountant, instead of from her former employers, is not sufficient to 
demonstrate her experience pursuant to the regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
In sum, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has at least five years progressive 
experience following her bachelor's degree as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
The Petitioner has not established that she has an advanced degree above that of her bachelor's degree 
or that she has at least five years of post-baccalaureate experience. Therefore, we withdraw the 
4 
Director's determination that the Petitioner is eligible to be classified as a member of the professions 
possessing an advanced degree. 
B. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
Because the Director determined that the Petitioner established her eligibility as a member of the 
professions possessing an advanced degree, the Director did not evaluate her claim that she qualifies 
as an individual of exceptional ability. 
The Petitioner claimed that she meets all six evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). For 
the reasons provided below, we conclude that the Petitioner does not meet at least three of the 
regulatory criteria required for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
An official academic record showing that the individual has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution 
of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner submitted a copy of her diploma and academic transcripts for her 
bachelor of accounting sciences from Universidade I I in Brazil. Based on these 
documents, the Petitioner has established that she meets the criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that 
the individual has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for 
which he or she is being sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner submitted a letter from her personal accountant to show her work 
experience in her occupation. However, her accountant's letter is not a letter from her fmmer 
employers, as required under the plain language of the criterion. Futhermore, as discussed above, the 
letters from her colleagues at her previous employer, I I lack sufficient details of her dates of 
employment and also do not indicate whether her position was full-time, as required by the criterion. 
Similarly, the letter from I ldoes not indicate whether 
her work was full-time. 
Therefore, the record does not demonstrate the Petitioner has at least ten years of full-time experience 
in the relevant occupation. 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
For this criterion, the Petitioner submitted a professional identity card from the Regional Council of 
Accounting of the _____ indicating the Petitioner's registration as an accountant with an 
expiration date of August 9, 2020. She also submitted a two-paragraph summary forl 
Regional Accounting Council indicating that it registers and supervises professionals and accounting 
services companies, and it has responsibility for continuing education and an integration program with 
university students. 
5 
I 
The identity card and the summary of the council who issued the card does not support a finding that 
it is a license to practice the profession or a certification to be an accountant, but instead merely 
identifies the Petitioner as an accountant under the regional council. 
Based on the evidence provided, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility under 
this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted a letter from her accountant detailing the 
Petitioner's total income for each of the years 2015 to 2018 and 9 months of 2019. The letter further 
states dates she worked as a reporting and management analyst and as an external auditor. The 
Petitioner also submitted articles relating to salaries for external auditors in Brazil. 
The accountant's letter details the Petitioner's salary during the time period she worked as a reporting 
and management analyst for I lfrom September 2015 to May 2019. However, the record 
does not include evidence that the Petitioner's salary as an analyst commanded asalary demonstrating 
her exceptional ability. The articles submitted relate to salaries for external auditors, instead of her 
occupation as a reporting and management analyst. 
The accountant's letter indicates she worked as an external auditor from July 2013 to August 2015 
and from July 2019 to September 2019. Although she submitted articles relating to average salaries 
for external auditors, the record does not demonstrate her income as an external auditor. The record 
does not include any evidence of the Petitioner's income during 2013 or 2014. Also, while she 
submitted her total income for 2015, we presume some of that income would have been for her work 
as an analyst since she started her work as an analyst in September 2015. Therefore, we are unable to 
determine what portion of her income for 2015 was for her external auditor work. Also, she submitted 
her total income for the first nine months of 2019 and did not document what portion of that income 
was for her work as an external auditor from July to September of 2019. Therefore, without evidence 
documenting her income as an external auditor, we are unable to determine if the average external 
auditor salaries indicated in the submitted articles demonstrate that she commanded a salary 
demonstrating her exceptional ability. 
Therefore, the Petitioner did not submit evidence that she has commanded a salary, or other 
remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability. For the foregoing reasons, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility under this criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
This criterion requires evidence of membership in a professional association. The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "profession" as any occupation having a minimum requirement of a 
United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent for entry into the occupation. 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner submitted a printout of her membership profile as a "CPA exam 
candidate affiliate" with the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants (AICPA) 
6 
having joined on May 15, 2020, and a one paragraph summary of AICPA. The AICPA summary 
indicates it "represents the CPA profession nationally" and explains its professional commitments, 
including commitments to advocacy, development and monitoring of professional and ethical 
standards, development and grading of certified public accountant (CPA) examinations, CPA 
licensing, and enforcing compliance with professional standards. 
The evidence provided does not show that AICPA requires at a minimum a U.S. bachelor's degree or 
its foreign equivalent for entry into the Petitioner's occupation, or that AICP A otherwise qualifies as 
a professional association as contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). The record does not 
contain evidence demonstrating the membership requirements for AICPA. The Petitioner has not 
established that AICPA's members are professionals as required by the plain language of the 
regulations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Therefore, she did not meet her burden to establish that it 
qualifies as a professional association. 
The Petitioner also submitted her professional identity card with the Regional Council of Accounting 
of thel Ito meet this criterion. As discussed above under the licensing criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C), the professional identity card states the Petitioner is registered as an 
accountant. The two-paragraph summary about the IRegional Accounting Council gives 
an overview of the council as "the accounting profession's registration and inspection system." 
Although we acknowledge that the Petitioner's identification card relates to her occupation as an 
accountant, the Petitioner has not established the requirements for an individual to be registered with 
the Regional Council for Accountants, and as such has not established that the council qualifies as a 
"professional association" within the meaning of the regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Moreover, we note that the Petitioner has not claimed that an accountant in Brazil must possess the 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. Since the Petitioner has not provided evidence establishing 
that the council requires its members to be professionals as defined in the regulations, she did not meet 
her burden to establish that it qualifies as a professional association. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentary evidence to 
establish this criterion. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner submitted letters of recommendation from her professor and from 
her former employers, and certificates of her completion of training courses. 
The letters of recommendation and certificates of her trainings show that the Petitioner received 
training related to her field. The letter from her professor attests to her being an active, successful 
student who later became a consultant and speaker in courses the professor taught. The letters from 
her former employers praise the Petitioner's work ethic and understanding of her work. The record 
shows the Petitioner has continued her training in accounting and finance, and that her employers and 
professor value her knowledge and her dedication to her work and to her field. However, it does not 
7 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to 
the industry or field, as required under the criterion. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated she meets this criterion. 
The Petitioner has not established that she meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) through (F). Since the Petitioner did not satisfy the initial evidence requirements, 
we need not conduct a final merits analysis to determine whether the evidence in its totality shows that 
she is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed 
the record in the aggregate and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has 
established the recognition required for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
C. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The Director determined that while the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, she 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 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. 5 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 foreign national proposes to unde1iake." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 
at 889. 
The Petitioner initially submitted a professional plan with a broad description of her proposed 
endeavor, "I intend to continue performing my [a]ccountant services." The Petitioner explains in her 
Counsel's letter that she proposes "to advance her career as an [a]ccountant by developing, 
implementing, advising, and using her in-depth knowledge acquired through years of experience in 
the field. [The Petitioner] will make her services available to small and large businesses belonging to 
both the private and public sectors in the United States." The Petitioner's plan generally explained 
that her proposed endeavor would aim to have a potential impact on the United States by creating jobs, 
generating tax revenue, producing intellectual property, monitoring investment funds, increasing 
companies' profits and tax revenues, increasing business efficiencies, and preparing companies for 
external audits. Her plan also highlighted her academic and professional experience, and described 
work generally performed by accountants and auditors and the intended growth of the accounting 
industry. The initial description of the proposed endeavor did not include any specific plans or 
evidence about starting an accounting services consulting business. 
Given the general description of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the Director requested she 
provide specific insight and details of the proposed endeavor. In response, the Petitioner submitted a 
5 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(0)(1). 
8 
business plan describing a proposed new financial and accounting services business, I ___ 
Financial and Accounting Services, for which the Petitioner would be its chief executive officer, 
accountant, and financial specialist. The business plan states that the business will be based in Florida 
and "will provide accounting and financial services to small businesses and individuals who want to 
open their own companies." We agree with the Director that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial 
merit. 
However, the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that her work would impact the field 
more broadly, stating," ... the [P]etitioner has not shown her proposed endeavor in this case stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond her proposed business and its clients, or the individuals the [P]etitioner 
would serve to impact the industry or field more broadly." Accordingly, the Director found that the 
Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director's decision has numerous errors in law and fact. 
The Petitioner argues that her proposed work has broad implications in that it would result in 
"enhancement of the American business structure and financial planning, with potential to have 
positive cascading effects disseminating to other economic fields." She emphasizes her business plan 
detailing her role in the business and projections for the business' revenue and job creation. She also 
points to evidence in the record to show her knowledge in the field, specifically her academic records, 
certifications, licenses, letters of her work experience, an article where she was interviewed for 
auditing procedures, her employee of the month recognition, documents of her lecturing on 
accounting, and letters from businesses interested in engaging her proposed business' services. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the 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.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of evidence. Upon de nova review, we find the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that her endeavor satisfies the 
national importance element of Dhanasar's first prong, as discussed below. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that her assistance to small and medium-sized businesses will help 
U.S. businesses "prosper and reach financial success" which will "enhance the economy as awhole, 
reaching the financial and banking system, international trade, domestic sales, health care and 
education." (emphasis in original). She contends her contributions will influence the field by 
"increasing national security and national competitiveness, improving operations and achieving 
better productivity and profitability levels, generating revenues ... , and creating employment 
opportunities through the use of better organizational techniques, financial automated systems 
and tax planning." (emphasis in original). She explains that the increase in tax revenue would make 
funding available for hospitals, schools, roads, and other services. The Petitioner also argues that her 
proposed endeavor has societal benefits since society and individuals are dependent on the financial 
system, and having standards of efficiency and quality will enhance "every aspect of life." For 
instance, the Petitioner's work would allow "for better internal financial structures and processes that 
result in high-quality finance reporting, which is key to improve transparency, facilitate investment, 
9 
create a sound investment environment and foster investor confidence, thus promoting financial 
stability and avoiding fraud." 
The Petitioner's business plan explains her plans "to continue performing her accounting services" in 
the United States with intentions to take the CPA exam; her academic and professional experience; 
establishment of office in I I Florida area for projected six employees in five years; 
analysis of the demand for accounting and financial services and expected growth of the industry in 
the United States; intent to serve small and medium businesses and individuals due to their tendency 
to outsource accounting services; national impact of the business, including reduction of client costs, 
increase business operation efficiencies, ensure tax compliance, and generation of direct and indirect 
jobs; and the business' proposed marketing, staffing, and financial forecasts. However, while the 
business plan provides descriptions of the proposed business, its intent to service small and medium­
sized business, an analysis of the financial management and accounting industry, and the Petitioner's 
experience, it does not document the potential prospective impact, including the asserted economic 
benefits to the United States. 
With the petition, the Petitioner submitted astatement contending her proposed endeavor has national 
importance based on the potential economic benefits asserted in the appeal. The Petitioner's claims 
that her financial and accounting services business will benefit the U.S. economy with her 
contributions "reaching the financial and banking system, international trade, domestic sales, health 
care and education" has not been established through independent and objective evidence. The 
Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in her statements and her 
business plan, that her business's activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to the United 
States. The Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate her endeavor has the potential to 
provide economic, societal, and security benefits to the United States. The Petitioner must support 
her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 
at 376. Also, without sufficient documentary evidence that her proposed job duties as the chief 
executive officer and the lead financial and accounting specialist for her business would impact the 
finance and accounting industry more broadly rather than benefiting her business and her proposed 
clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that her proposed 
endeavor is of national importance. 
The Petitioner emphasizes on appeal her business plan's projection of creating direct and indirect jobs 
having reach beyond her clients since "it will generate a final-demand impact in employment 
equivalent to 121 jobs in five years .... " The business plan projects that in five years the consulting 
business will hire six direct employees which will generate wages of over $142,000, create 121 indirect 
jobs with final demand impact in output of over $700,000, and pay over $64,000 in federal taxes. The 
record does not sufficiently detai I the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately 
explain how these projections will be realized. While the Petitioner expresses her desire to contribute 
to the United States and assist small and medium sized businesses, she has not established with 
specific, probative evidence that her endeavor will have broader implications in her field, will have 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or will have other substantial positive economic effects. 
The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See id. 
Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record lacks evidence 
showing that creating six direct jobs and 121 indirect jobs, and that paying wages of over $142,000 
and federal taxes of over $64,000 over a five-year period rises to the level of national importance. 
10 
The Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that her past achievements show that her proposed endeavor has 
significant prospective impact. For instance, her professional experience in financial systems and 
external auditing will meet the demands of the economy to "ensure corporation's internal financial 
processes, teams and operations are well-structured and planned and, thus, enhance workflow 
productivity and reduce costs." She points to her experience in "guiding colleagues on SAP, a leading 
ERP software that facilitates data processing and information flow." Her business would "help small 
and medium businesses implement SAP and benefit from all of the system's advantages to better 
control and use their financial data. She also emphasizes a recommendation from her current employer 
who praises her work in its financial department and her "implementation of new controls and 
improvement efforts" which have helped the "to improve the operations and achieve better 
productivity." 
However, the Petitioner's reliance on her previous professional achievements and experience to 
establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor is misplaced. Her academic credentials, 
achievements, and professional experience relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 
l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to 
undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 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. See id. at 889. 
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. Id. at 893. The record 
does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the U.S. 
business industries and the field of financial and accounting services, as contemplated by Dhanasar: 
"[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." Id. The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's financial and 
accounting services would impact the accounting field more broadly. 
The Petitioner further emphasizes that her field of accounting is a "major economic driver of the 
U.S. economy" and provides an analysis contending the accounting field has a major impact on the 
growth of global wealth. (emphasis in original). The record includes accounting and financial industry 
articles and reports. The reports and articles relate to companies conducting external audits; corporate 
accounting; financial analysis; labor statistics for accountants, auditors, and financial analysts; small 
business economic trends; and the United States' need for foreign workers. 
We recognize the importance of the accounting and financial services industry and related careers, as 
well as the significance of immigrants to the U.S. workforce; however, merely working in the financial 
analysis and accounting services fields or starting a financial and accounting services business is 
insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 
noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]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. 
11 
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. The industry 
reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
We further note that the record includes two expert opinions attesting to the Petitioner's eligibility for 
the national interest waiver with analyses of the national importance of Petitioner's endeavor. An 
opinion from I I visiting assistant professor of accounting atl Iuniversity in New 
York, states that the Petitioner's "proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance .... " The opinion points out that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national 
importance based on the expected growth of job opportunities for accountants and auditors, the 
Petitioner's business' intent to service small businesses which are of import to the U.S. economy, and 
the business' projected personnel, gross revenue, and rental of office space. The opinion explains the 
Petitioner's work experience in financial audits for national and multinational corporations in Brazil 
and her progress in the accounting and finance field in the United States where she helped improve 
her employers' financial controls and cash flow. 
The second opinion from I I professor of practice atl !University in
I I Oklahoma similarly explains that the Petitioner's areas of specialization, accounting, 
auditing, and financial management are "in demand and of national importance in the accounting 
field." The opinion explains the duties of accountants and auditors, and that the Petitioner's experience 
in accounting and auditing will help U.S. businesses improve operations, productivity, and 
profitability, thereby generating tax revenue. Like the first opinion, this opinion emphasizes the need 
for accountants, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. 
However, the focus of both opinions on the need for accountants and auditors and how the Petitioner's 
professional experience makes her well positioned to help businesses with her professional skills, does 
not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific endeavor would have a prospective impact in her field. 
The opinions do not focus on the Petitioner's specific endeavor and it having a potential prospective 
impact on the U.S. economy, or in the field of financial and accounting services. Stating that her work 
would support an important industry is not sufficient to meet the "national importance" requirement 
under the Dhanasar framework. 
The opinion froml also explains that companies doing or planning to do business abroad 
would benefit from the Petitioner's expertise, stating, "it is critical for U.S. companies doing business 
or planning to do business abroad to benefit from her expertise as an Accountant, with an intimate and 
first-hand knowledge of the Brazilian financial arena." However, the record does not indicate that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor includes collaborative works between U.S. companies and Brazilian 
companies, or that she is actively targeting U.S. companies that do business, or plan to do business in 
Brazil. Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, USCIS 
is not required to accept it or may give it less weight. See Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 817 
(Comm'r 1988). The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility. Matter of Caron Int 'I, 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988); see also Matter 
of D-R-, 25 l&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given 
expert testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). The content of the 
opinion is lacking relevance because it discusses how the Petitioner's expertise would be beneficial to 
12 
U.S. companies doing business in Brazil; instead of addressing how the specific proposed endeavor 
would satisfy the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her business and her 
future clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Beyond general assertions, she has not demonstrated that 
the work she proposes to undertake as the chief executive officer and the lead financial and accounting 
specialist of her proposed business offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in her 
industry or otherwise has broader implications for her field. The economic benefits that the Petitioner 
claims depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie 
between her proposed business's financial and accounting services work and the claimed economic 
results. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding her eligibility under the second and third 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 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). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, or 
that she has met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that the 
Petitioner is not eligible 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. 
13