dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Tax Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 03, 2023 In Re: 27310813 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a tax analyst, 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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner was eligible for, and merited as a matter of discretion, a national interest 
waiver. 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 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. 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a tax analyst with several years of experience working for large accounting firms. 
He intends to continue to operate his company in Florida, providing financial and tax services to 
companies and individuals. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner is eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. The sole issue on appeal is whether he qualifies for, and 
merits as a mater of discretion, a waiver of that classification's job offer requirement. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 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, entrepreneurial ism, 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. 
In her decision, the Director concluded that, based upon the Petitioner's description of his proposed 
endeavor and the supporting documentation regarding the importance of tax and financial services, his 
proposed endeavor is of substantial merit. However, the Director went on to conclude that the 
Petitioner's projections ofjob creation and earnings included in his business plan did not demonstrate 
that his proposed endeavor would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or provide other 
substantial economic benefits at the state or national level. In addition, the Director determined that 
the evidence did not establish that the proposed endeavor would have broader impacts beyond that of 
the clients the Petitioner's company would serve. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director imposed novel requirements in her decision and 
exceeded the evidentiary standard of preponderance of the evidence. However, he does not identify a 
specific instance where the Director applied a higher evidentiary standard or imposed requirements 
beyond those in the pertinent statute, regulations, and policies, but instead lists the evidence in the 
record and makes a conclusory statement. This is not sufficient to show that the Director made a legal 
or factual error in his decision as the Petitioner asserts. 
Regarding the national importance of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner first refers to the 
projections in his business plan which predict total revenue of his company of almost $10 million over 
1 See also Poursina v. USCJS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionmy in nature). 
2 
five years. However, the business plan provides no analysis or explanation of how these estimates 
were calculated, and the unaudited financial statements for the business covering calendar year 2021 
and the first nine months in 2022 are not verifiable evidence and reflect the statements of management, 
and they do not support the estimates. Accordingly, this evidence does not sufficiently show how the 
proposed endeavor would potentially have substantial positive economic effects or would otherwise 
be of national importance. 
The Petitioner also makes several broader arguments about the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. For example, he states that he "will continue to work on nationally important projects," but 
does not specify any particular potential projects in which he or is company will be engaged. He also 
refers to statistics in the supporting evidence about trade between the United States and Brazil, and 
the effect of immigrant entrepreneurs on the national economy. However, in determining national 
importance, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The fact that immigrant investors and trade with Brazil have an overall 
positive economic impact on the U.S. national economy does not establish that the Petitioner's tax and 
financial consulting business will likewise be of national importance. 
Another argument repeatedly put forth by the Petitioner in support of the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor concerns his previous experience as a tax and financial advisor. For example, he 
asserts that due to this experience he "will successfully manage his business" and is "set to help the 
U.S. stay competitive." He also stresses on appeal that he is "extremely knowledgeable in complex 
regulatory systems, and diverse market standards for cross-border business transactions." But the 
Petitioner's education, training, and experience relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, where the focus in on the individual's positioning to advance the proposed endeavor. Id. 
at 890. These factors do not help to show the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. 
For the reasons detailed above, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not 
established that his proposed endeavor is of national importance, and that he therefore does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a 
model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the 
interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. at 890. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
Based upon the evidence of the Petitioner's education and experience, as well as his plans and steps 
taken in starting his business, we agree. 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. But he has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and 
does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, and has therefore not established 
that he is eligible for, and merits as a matter of discretion, 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 his qualification under the third prong of the 
Dhansar framework. 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 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4