remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting And Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 23, 2024 In Re: 29532247 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an auditor 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 Acting Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, 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 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 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
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.' 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
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 that they merit a discretionary 
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 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
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; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 3 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner states that he has nearly 1 7 years of experience in accounting and has operated his own 
accounting firm in Brazil since 2012, "with large customers in the areas of Accounting, Tax, and Tax 
and Personnel." He states that he intends "to continue working the high-growth industry of financial 
services, specifically working in finding solutions and generating benefits in the accounting, advisory, 
tax, and auditing areas." He further states that he intends to expand his current Brazilian accounting 
company, MP Accounting, to open his own consulting company and provide the following services: 
• Business valuation; 
• Due diligence; 
• Environmental, social and governance consulting; 
• Cost management; 
• Personal financial planning; 
• Accounting and financial technology; and 
• Auditing services. 
The Petitioner states that he will differentiate himself from other major accounting firms "by offering 
the same high-level services, but offering a very attractive and competitive cost-benefit relationship 
[and serving] as an internal or external auditor." He states that he intends to provide the following 
services to U.S. companies operating, or planning to operate, in Brazil: 
• International tax services; 
• Labor regulation services; 
• International accounting standard services; and 
• Third party capital services. 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education and experience, a personal 
statement describing his qualifications and the field of accounting and financial services, an expert 
opinion letter, recommendation and support letters, and legal and marketing documentation for his 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree awarded in 2014, followed 
by more than five years of progressive experience. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
2 
Brazilian accounting business. He also submitted industry reports and articles discussing the 
complexities of corporate taxes in Brazil, doing business in Brazil, shortages and demand in the field 
of financial and accounting services, and the benefits of international trade for the United States. 
Following initial review, the Acting Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the 
Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish his eligibility for the 
national interest waiver. The Acting Director specifically noted that the Petitioner's initial evidence 
did not include a detailed description of his proposed undertaking or venture. The Petitioner's 
response to the RFE includes an updated personal statement and additional industry reports and articles 
addressing the importance of generating employment to the U.S. economy. In his updated personal 
statement, the Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor is to "advance my career in the United States 
by utilizing my expertise and knowledge in the financial services industry." 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Acting Director determined that the Petitioner did 
not provide specific insight as to what he intended to do as an auditor and international tax consultant. 
The Acting Director noted that "a position, field or industry is not an endeavor that meets the 
requirement of the Dhanasar analytical framework." She concluded that, without the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, USCIS is impeded in determining the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Acting Director erred in concluding that 
that he did not provide specific insight of his proposed endeavor to work as an auditor and international 
tax consultant. In his brief on appeal, the Petitioner references evidence already in the record and 
states that this evidence demonstrates that he merits a national interest waiver. 
As noted above, the Acting Director concluded that the Petitioner did not describe his proposed 
endeavor with sufficient specificity. As a result, the Acting Director stated that USCIS was impeded 
in analyzing whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and is of national 
importance, whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, and whether, 
on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. In her decision, the 
Acting Director references the Petitioner's personal statements and statements made by the 
Petitioner's counsel. Upon de novo review, we determine that the Acting Director's decision does not 
offer a complete analysis or adequately explain the deficiencies in the evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must 
fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to 
challenge the determination on appeal). 
At the outset, we note that the Acting Director incorrectly states in her decision that the Petitioner 
submitted evidence that he is a foreign national of exceptional ability. 4 This statement is incorrect and 
contrary to the Acting Director's determination in the RFE that the Petitioner established that he is an 
advanced degree professional pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
4 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). 
3 
The Acting Director's determination that the record does not describe a proposed endeavor is contrary 
to the evidence submitted (which included, among other items, two personal statements from the 
Petitioner, an expert opinion letter, and documentation of the Petitioner's accounting business). 
Further, this conclusory finding that the Petitioner did not provide a description of his proposed 
endeavor led to an insufficient analysis of the evidence submitted in support of each prong of the 
framework in Matter ofDhanasar. 
While the record contains various statements authored by the Petitioner's counsel, including counsel's 
initial cover letter and the letter submitted in response to the RFE, the record also contains two personal 
statements from the Petitioner adequately conveying that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to 
expand his current business based in Brazil to the United States in order to offer financial services in 
accounting, advisory, tax, and auditing. 
In light of the above, we conclude that the record contains sufficient documentation establishing that 
the Petitioner adequately described his proposed endeavor. The Acting Director's determination to 
the contrary was therefore incorrect. Because the Acting Director did not provide an analysis of the 
Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver under any of the prongs set forth in the framework 
under Matter ofDhanasar, we will withdraw the Acting Director's decision. 
Because the Acting Director's decision does not properly apply the Dhanasar framework to the facts 
in the record, we will remand the matter for entry of a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4