dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Services And Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 15, 2024 In Re: 34895056 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. 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 
is an advanced degree professional, he did not establish 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 
pursuant to 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. Once a 
petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then establish 
eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Id. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a 
matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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 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. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner filed this petition on February 28, 2024. After analyzing the initial evidence, the 
Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), noting the deficiencies in the record and provided the 
Petitioner a non-exhaustive list of evidence he could submit to satisfy his burden. The Petitioner 
timely responded, and the Director denied the petition concluding that although the Petitioner is 
eligible for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, he did not establish that a waiver 
of the job offer, and labor certification requirement, is in the national interest because he did not meet 
the first and third Dhanasar prongs. On appeal, the Petitioner contests the Director's determination 
and asserts he meets all three of the Dhanasar prongs. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner qualifies for 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. As such, the only remaining 
issue is whether the Petitioner's endeavor meets the Dhanasar framework for a discretionary national 
interest waiver. 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake and its "potential prospective impact." Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, 
entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. The term "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. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
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. Id. As such, we will first 
identify the Petitioner's endeavor as shown in the record. Then, we will evaluate the Petitioner's 
evidence in support of the endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. 
The Petitioner filed this petition to carry out his proposed endeavor of working as a consultant in the 
field of financial services and accounting, through his company, ______ (the Company). 
The Company provides the following services: tax preparation, tax and financial planning, 
bookkeeping, business formation, public accounting, auditing, financial investigation, forensics, 
education and training. The Director summarized the Petitioner's evidence and analyzed why it did 
not establish his eligibility for a national interest waiver. In so doing, the Director addressed the 
Petitioner's assertions that the economic impact of his proposed endeavor rendered it of national 
importance within the meaning of prong one of the Dhanasar framework. In addition, the Director 
addressed the Petitioner's assertions related to the importance of his field of accounting and financial 
services, and the evidence he provided to establish his endeavor would have broader implications. 
2 
However, the Director's decision determined that the impact of the Petitioner's endeavor did not 
extend beyond his current and future clients. We agree. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, reasserting his eligibility for a national interest waiver and 
contends that the Director erred in their determination. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Director erred by not considering the six letters of intent he provided in his RFE response. The 
Director's rationale is supported by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l ), which requires a petitioner 
to establish their eligibility for a benefit at the time of filing the benefit request. And, even if this 
evidence is considered, the letters do not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance 
because they only highlight that the endeavor's impact is to the individual clients and companies that 
hire the Petitioner to provide his services. Furthermore, to the extent the letters reference a shortage 
of professionals in the Petitioner's field, the U.S. Department of Labor directly addresses labor 
shortages through its labor certification process. Finally, because the Petitioner submitted several 
letters of intent to hire him with his initial petition, and these were considered in the Director's 
analysis, the Petitioner's assertion that the Director erred is unpersuasive. 
Next, the Petitioner, citing to Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 758 (9th Cir. 2008), 
asserts that the Director erred in their prong one analysis by considering each piece of evidence 
individually rather than cumulatively and in its totality. In their analysis, the Director considered the 
probative weight of the evidence based on its relevance to the Petitioner's burden as required by Matter 
of Chawathe. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375 (standing for the proposition that to 
determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance standard, we consider 
the quality, relevance, probative value, and credibility of the evidence). In particular, the Director 
considered the Petitioner's business plan, industry reports and news media articles, letters of support 
from a senior manager at I I and the founder of letters of intent 
from potential clients, and the administration's policies aimed at attracting more STEM professionals. 
The Director noted, however that while these documents and evidence establish the proposed 
endeavor's substantial merit, they do not establish its national importance because the scope of the 
proposed endeavor's impact is limited to its clients. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that because his business plan projects to open offices 
beyond his initial location in the 
prospective economic impact of his endeavor is "substantial" as required by Dhanasar. However, 
Dhanasar explained that a proposed 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 Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 890. The Petitioner has not established his endeavor has met this standard. We further 
acknowledge the Petitioner's plan to incorporate generative artificial intelligence into its tax 
technology strategy, which it asserts will lead to innovation, and broadly enhance societal welfare and 
bring cultural enrichment. The Petitioner also highlights how his notary public services are matters 
affecting national initiatives because notaries are essential to authenticating documents and fighting 
fraud. We acknowledge that reducing fraud is a matter of government initiatives and concern, however 
the Petitioner's evidence does not establish his endeavor will reduce fraud or address these matters at 
a level commensurate with national importance. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375. 
3 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision regarding the Petitioner's eligibility under the first 
Dhanasar prong. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 
113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision 
below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that appellate 
adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized 
consideration" to the case). 
Because a petitioner must establish that they meet all three prongs of the Dhanasar framework to 
obtain a national interest waiver, if even one of the prongs is not established, a petitioner is ineligible 
for this waiver. Accordingly, because the Petitioner has not established his eligibility under prong 
one, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding the third Dhanasar 
prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "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). We will also reserve our review of the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner met prong two of the Dhanasar framework. Id. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor, and consequently 
that a waiver of the job offer and labor certification process, in the exercise of our discretion, is in the 
national interest. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4