dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: International Tax Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25692219 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 10, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , an attorney and international tax consultant , seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, 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 
qualifies for the underlying classification , the evidence did not establish the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor and that a waiver of the requirement of a 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&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. See section 203(b )(2) 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 considered 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 l&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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree in law from a Brazilian university in 2009 and later 
completed a one-year post-graduate program in civil and procedural law at the same university. 
According to the Petitioner's resume, she worked as a tax consultant with the City of 
Environmental Law Department (from 2008 until 2013) and as a law partner, specializing in tax law, 
with ___________ (from 2010 until 2019). The Petitioner entered the United 
States in July 2019 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure and filed this petition in December 
2019. 
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. 
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. 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. 2 
The Petitioner indicates that she intends to work as an international tax consultant in the United States. 
In a personal statement, she stated that she intends to "provide appropriate technical guidance to 
individuals and partnerships with U.S. and Brazilian offices to encourage investment in both the U.S. 
by the Brazilian community ... as well as by Americans who often decide not to invest in Brazil 
because of misunderstanding of the 'confusing tax law."' 
The Petitioner provided evidence that she is the sole member of - a 
Florida limited liability company established in 2019. According to a submitted business plan, the 
Petitioner's company will offer tax consulting services to U.S. businesses and individuals seeking to 
make investments in Brazil and provide investment and financial consulting services for Brazilian 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature) . 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
investors considering entry into the U.S. market. The business plan states that these services will 
benefit the "overall U.S. economy" by (1) increasing efficiency and reducing costs for client 
companies; (2) transferring the Petitioner's knowledge to newly hired financial consultants and tax 
lawyers; (3) enabling foreign direct investment in the United States that will generate economic 
growth; and (4) stimulating the U.S. economy through creation of eight new jobs within five years. 
Specifically, the business plan indicates that the company will employ a general manager (the 
Petitioner), three financial consultants, three tax lawyers, an administrative assistant, and additional 
independent contractors. The included financial projections estimate that the company will have total 
payroll expenses of over $526,000, sales revenue of $824,500 and will generate $125,000 in tax 
revenue in its fifth year of operations. The business plan states that the company will be headquartered 
inl land will initially target Florida, but will expand its target areas to include Georgia, California, 
and New York by its fourth year. 
The Petitioner's initial evidence also included an article aboutl I real estate market and an article 
about Florida's economy, which highlights both international trade and financial services among 
industries that are driving economic growth in the state. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) advising the Petitioner she would need to provide 
additional evidence addressing the national importance of the proposed endeavor. In response, she re­
submitted her company's business plan and provided an advisory opinion letter from an accounting 
professor atl I University The letter provides background information regarding 
international tax regulations, accounting, financial analysis, and financial reporting in the context of 
the business environment. It also generally explains why the professional services of international tax 
consultants and financial consultants are beneficial to businesses and emphasizes the increasing 
demand for experts in these fields. The writer concludes that "because of the importance of a well­
trained financial expert for all companies in all industries, the position of an experienced consultant in 
the field is vital to the United States." 
In discussing the specific proposed endeavor, the professor states that Florida, as a gateway for 
bilateral trade between Brazil and the United States, "is a location with great potential for opening a 
business that facilitates international exchange" between the two countries. He notes that due to the 
complexity of Brazil's tax system, many entrepreneurs and business owners have been dissuaded from 
starting or investing in business in Brazil. He emphasizes that by providing tax consulting to U.S. 
investors looking to invest in Brazil, the Petitioner's company "will contribute to the economy of both 
countries and bridge the persisting knowledge ... gap." Finally, the writer emphasizes that the 
Petitioner's company will generate job opportunities for up to eight U.S. workers within five years, 
which will result in payroll taxes being paid as well as the employees reinvesting their earnings back 
into the economy, thus benefiting "the overall economy of the country." A second advisory opinion 
letter, written by a Florida-licensed attorney, states that the Petitioner's company will result in job 
creation and that its clients "will also contribute to the American economy and indirectly create jobs 
for qualified individuals." 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's business plan for her company and the letters submitted 
in response to the RFE but determined that she had not established the national importance of her 
specific proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not apply the 
3 
preponderance of the evidence standard when evaluating the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor under the Dhanasar framework. The appellate brief incorporates long excerpts from the 
Petitioner's personal statement, the business plan and expert opinion letters and asserts that the 
Director appeared to overlook much of this evidence. The Petitioner maintains that her proposed 
endeavor will have "a far reach" because it targets both U.S. and foreign companies in need of tax 
consulting and other financial services. 
When 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 "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As noted by the Director, 
the Petitioner's response to the RFE relied heavily on the NYU professor's advisory opinion letter, a 
letter that primarily addresses the importance of the Petitioner's industry and profession by generally 
explaining why tax experts and financial consultants are beneficial to U.S. businesses . The Director 
acknowledged that the advisory opinion letter emphasized the increasing demand and need for 
individuals who possess the Petitioner's expertise but determined that statements about the occupation 
or the field in general do not establish how the specific proposed endeavor stands to impact the broader 
field or otherwise establish its national importance. The Petitioner's claim that the Director did not 
consider this evidence or give it sufficient weight is unpersuasive. 
Further, we agree with the Director's assessment of the expert opinion testimony. 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'!, 19 I&N Dec . 791, 795 
(Comm'r. 1988). 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., 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). 
Here, as noted, much of the content of the advisory opinion letter is lacking relevance because it 
discusses the importance of the Petitioner's industry and occupation rather than addressing how the 
specific proposed endeavor would satisfy the national importance element of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. The writer offers little analysis of the proposed endeavor and its prospective 
substantial economic impact and does not otherwise address the implications of the proposed endeavor 
on the larger field of tax or financial consulting. Rather, he concludes that the professional services 
that international tax and financial consultants play is "of national importance to the United States" 
and states that someone like the Petitioner, who is an expert in the field, would therefore "greatly 
benefit US based business and organizations and allow them to retain more revenue ." 
The Director also considered the business plan and determined that it did demonstrate that the 
company's future staffing levels and consulting activity would provide substantial economic benefits 
in Florida or the United States. The record supports the Director's conclusion. Although the business 
plan reflects that the company will hire several workers, the record does not contain sufficient evidence 
to reflect that the area where it will operate is economically depressed, that it would employ a 
significant population of workers in the area, or that the specific proposed endeavor would offer the 
region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, 
trade, or related tax revenue. In this regard, we note that the Petitioner provided a 2019 Investopedia 
4 
article titled~---------------------~indicating that Florida has 
the fourth-largest economy in the United States with a GDP of $840 billion and that the state's 
financial services sector has nearly 130,000 firms employing almost 900,000 Florida residents. The 
record does not support that the creation of eight additional jobs in this sector or the expected tax 
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. 
Although the business plan mentions the company's intent to target clients in other states, it does not 
elaborate on these plans or indicate that it will open additional branches or offices that might extend 
its impact. The business plan also indicates that the Petitioner's company would offer additional 
economic benefits including enabling foreign direct investment in new or existing U.S. businesses, 
and increased efficiency and cost reduction for clients that use its services. However, these statements 
are not supported by financial projections. Although the proposed endeavor may benefit the client 
companies 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon the evidence and arguments already submitted. She reiterates the 
importance of the industry or profession, her expertise, and her role within the newly formed company; 
however, these factors do not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner likewise reiterates her professional experience and abilities. While important, the 
Petitioner's expertise acquired through her employment relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. The issue 
here is whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance 
under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
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 also 
concluded that the Petitioner had not established her eligibility under 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. 3 
III. ELIGIBILITY FOR EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. Specifically, the 
Director determined that the Petitioner submitted an official academic record and a credentials 
evaluation demonstrating that she holds the foreign equivalent of a United States baccalaureate degree 
and evidence in the form of letters from her employers documenting that she has at least five years of 
progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 4 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). While 
the record demonstrates that the Petitioner has the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 T&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is othe1wise ineligible). 
4 In the decision the Director stated that the Petitioner's RFE response included letters from [ I I I attesting to the Petitioner's five years of progressive experience. However, the record 
reflects that the Petitioner has not su bmitted letters from these entities or identified them as her current or former employers. 
5 
legal studies and includes letters attesting to her experience in the field, it contains unresolved 
inconsistencies that undermine the probative value of those letters. 
The Petitioner submitted Part B of Form ETA 750, Application for Alien Employment Certification, 
attesting to her education and work experience. Where asked to provide details regarding her prior 
employment, she stated" lease see resume." As noted, the Petitioner's resume indicates she worked 
as a law partner fo from 2010 until 2019 and as a tax consultant 
for the City of Environmental Law Department from 2008 until 2013. 
The Petitioner's initial evidence included a reference letter from the attorney general of the City of 
I l who confirmed her service as a legal advisor in the city's environmental and urban planning 
attorney's office from 2008 to 2012. She submitted two additional employment letters in response to 
the RFE, including a second letter from the attorney general of the City ofl I who stated that 
she worked for the city as a legal advisor on a foll-time basis from September 2008 until December 
2013. In addition, the RFE response included a letter signed by two representatives ofl I I I Attorney Associates, who attest that the Petitioner worked as a tax attorney for their firm on a 
foll-time basis from January 2014 until December 2019. 
The two letters from the City ofl I are not sufficient to document the Petitioner's five years of 
progressive post-baccalaureate experience. The letters, which are attributed to the same individual, 
contain different dates of employment and the writer did not indicate in the second letter that she was 
making a correction to her previous statement or otherwise acknowledge the inconsistency. In 
addition, although the letter provided with the RFE response indicates that the Petitioner was employed 
by the City of attorney's office on a foll-time basis for more than five years, the record reflects 
that she did not complete her bachelor's degree until December 2009, which would give her, at most, 
four years of post-baccalaureate experience with this employer. 
The letter from Attorney Associates indicates that the Petitioner worked for this 
firm on a foll-time basis for a period of approximately six years. However, the Petitioner herself did 
not claim any employment with this entity in her personal statement, resume, business plan, Form 
ETA 750, or her concurrently filed Form 1-485 A lication to Re ister Permanent Residence or 
Adjust Status, where she consistently identified as her only other 
employer. Despite the Petitioner's submission of a letter from _____ Attorney Associates 
confirming her employment, we cannot overlook that there are no other references to this firm in the 
record, which undermines the probative value of the submitted employment letter. As a result, the 
record as presently constituted does not sufficiently document the Petitioner's five years of post­
baccalaureate employment through letters from her current or former employers, as required by 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
The Petitioner must resolve discrepancies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing 
to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). As noted, the Director 
determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
despite the unresolved inconsistencies in her employment history, and the Petitioner was not put on 
notice of the need for such evidence. However, the Petitioner will need to address this issue if she 
pursues a motion or files a new petition requesting this classification. 
6 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she 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. 
7