dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Automation And Control

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 15, 2023 In Re: 28819117 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, describing himself as an entrepreneur in the field of automation and control, 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). 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 the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Further, the Director 
determined the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor was of national importance, 
that he was well positioned to advance his endeavor, or that it would be beneficial for the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification. 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 Christa '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. 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). 
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 2 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself: establish eligibility for this classification. 3 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. 
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 USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion 4, 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. ADV AN CED DEGREE PROFESSIONAL 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that his academic background combined with his "over 27 
years of progressive professional experience" established he "possesses advanced qualifications that are 
equivalent to an Advanced Degree from an accredited institution ofhigher education in the United States." 
Specifically, he asserted that he qualified as a professional holding an advanced degree based on holding 
the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree and five years of progressive post-baccalaureate 
experience in his field. In support of this assertion, the Petitioner submitted a diploma from the I II lin Brazil dated in January 2018 reflecting that he was awarded the title "Technologist in 
Industrial Production Management." The Petitioner further provided a "Certificate of Conclusion" from 
the same educational institution dated in March 2015 indicating that the Petitioner had completed, in 
2007, "the requirements needed for the completion of the Graduation course in HIGHER EDUCATION 
COURSE IN INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION." The~------~also stated in this document 
from 2015 "that said student will graduate in due time." In addition, the Petitioner also submitted the 
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. 
2 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
3 USCTS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
4 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
Petitioner's transcripts from his time at the ....l ________ _,l which reflect that he completed two 
years of study. 
The Petitioner also submitted an expert opinion from I l a senior evaluator for United 
States Credential Evaluations, dated July 27, 2021, stating that the Petitioner's academic qualifications 
are equivalent to two years of undergraduate study in the United States. It farther states the following: 
Considering that a Technology Degree followed by thirteen years of foll-time work 
experience in the field of Industrial Production Management is equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in Industrial Production Management, it is my expert opinion that [the 
Petitioner] with a technology degree in Industrial Production Management and 13 years 
of experience, has no less than the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in industrial 
production management. 
The Director then issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that the submitted evidence was insufficient 
to demonstrate that the Petitioner held the foreign equivalent ofat least a four-year U.S. bachelor's degree. 
As such, the Director requested that the Petitioner provide evidence to establish that he had the foreign 
equivalent of U.S. bachelor's degree along with documentation to substantiate that he had at least five 
years of progressive experience following the receipt of this degree, including support letters from 
employers. In response, the Petitioner did not assert he qualified as an advanced degree professional 
but contended that he qualified for EB-2 classification based on having exceptional ability. The 
Petitioner farther pointed to the theoretical and professional experience he "developed through his 
studies," includin a "hi her education course of technology on industry production management" 
from the and a masters of business administration degree (MBA) from 
in Brazil. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the submitted evidence was insufficient to 
establish that the Beneficiary held a bachelor's degree or an MBA, as asserted. The Director pointed 
to the Educational Database for Global Education (EDGE), created by the American Association of 
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) as a resource for assessing the U.S. 
equivalency of foreign educational credentials. 5 The Director indicated that the diploma submitted by 
the Petitioner from the~--------~ in industrial production management was not the 
foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree since EDGE reflected that a petitioner should hold at 
least a four- to five-year "Titulo de Bacharel/Grau de Bacharal" degree from Brazilian university to 
equate to a four-year U.S. bachelor's degree. The Director also stated that EDGE showed that the 
Petitioner's diploma likely equated to a "Title of Technologist" diploma in Brazil, awarded after only 
two to three years of university study. Therefore, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he held an advanced degree as required. 
5 USCTS considers EDGE to be a reliable, peer-reviewed source of information about the equivalencies of foreign 
educational credentials. AACRAO is described on its website as "a nonprofit, voluntary, professional association of more 
than 11,000 higher education admissions and registration professionals who represent more than 2,600 institutions and 
agencies in the United States and in over 40 countries." AACRAO, https://www.aacrao.org/who-we-are (last accessed 
December 15. 2023). "Its mission is to provide professional development, guidelines, and voluntary standards to be used 
by higher education officials regarding the best practices in records management, admissions, enrollment management, 
administrative information technology. and student services." Id. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner again asserts that he qualifies as a professional holding an advanced degree. 
He does not assert on appeal that he qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, 
arts, or business. An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 
330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). Therefore, 
we deem the issue of exceptional ability waived and will not address it further in this decision. 
Regarding the Petitioner's appellate claim, he emphasizes that he has attained "the equivalent of an 
Advanced Degree with more than thirty (30) years' experience in areas such as logistics, maintenance, 
production, automation engineering, business administration, project management, industrial 
production management, and electrical and mechanical engineering, among others." The Petitioner 
emphasizes employment verification letters provided on the record, noting that these reflect his 
required five years of progressive experience. The Petitioner contends that he has "skills and 
knowledge through his extensive professional and educational experience" and lists the following 
asserted educational credentials: 
In June 1995, he graduated as a Certified Electrician from I I in Brazil. In 
November 1997, he graduated as an Electronic Technician froml Iin 
Brazil. In December 2007, he earned a Degree in Industrial Production Management 
from I I In December 2008, he completed his [MBA] in Project 
Management at I I 
The Petitioner further points to the expert opinion provided froml l emphasizing that he 
opined that the Petitioner's academic qualifications are "equivalent of a US 2 Years of undergraduate 
Programs - Major in Manufacturing Operations [sic]." The Petitioner contends his academic 
experience along with his progressive work experience establishes that he qualifies as a professional 
holding an advanced degree. 
As discussed, in support of the petition, the Petitioner emphasized that he qualified as a professional 
holding an advanced degree based on having the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree along with 
five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in his field, specifically pointing to his 
diploma from the.__ _______ __,awarding him the title 'Technologist in Industrial Production 
Management." Likewise, a submitted expert opinion from I I opined that the combination 
of his technology degree in industrial production management, which equated to two years of 
undergraduate study in the United States, and his 13 years ofrelated experience, was the equivalent of 
a U.S. bachelor's degree in industrial production management. I I asserted that "under the 
provision USCIS, the '3-for-1 Rule' states that three years ofrelevant work experience is equal to one 
year of education." 
In order to have education and experience equating to an advanced degree under section 203(b )(2) of 
the Act, the Petitioner must have a single degree that is the "foreign equivalent degree" to a United 
States baccalaureate degree (plus five years of progressive experience in the specialty). See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). A United States baccalaureate degree is generally found to require four years of 
education. See Matter ofShah, 17 I&N Dec. 244, 245 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977). There is no provision in 
the statute or the regulations that would allow a petitioner to qualify under section 203(b )(2) of the 
Act as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with anything less than a full 
baccalaureate degree (plus five years of progressive experience in the specialty). The regulation at 8 
4 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) requires an official academic record showing that the noncitizen has a 
United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters 
from current or former employers showing that the noncitizen has at least five years of progressive 
post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
The Petitioner has set forth a confusing array of assertions with respect to his education leaving 
substantial uncertainty as to whether he qualifies as a professional holding an advanced degree As 
noted, the Petitioner emphasized his diploma from the ._________ ____. awarding him title 
"Technologist in Industrial Production Management." However, the Petitioner's resume reflected that 
this was awarded this in December 2007, while the diploma itself indicates that it was issued in January 
2018. Likewise, the provided "Certificate of Conclusion" from the same educational institution dated 
in March 2015 suggested that the Petitioner had not completed the requirements for this diploma in 
2007, stating questionably "that said student will graduate in due time." 
The Petitioner also emf hasizes on appeal that he earned an MBA "in "Project Management at 
I in December 2008. However, the Petitioner's assertions in support of the 
petition made no mention of him attaining an MBA in 2008, nor was it discussed in the 2021 expert 
opinion provided by I I It is also notable that the Petitioner provided no supporting 
documentation, such as a degree and transcripts, to substantiate his claimed MBA, and it is 
questionable that he would have attained such a degree only one year after completing his claimed 
diploma from the~-------~ particularly since this diploma afpears to have been awarded 
in 2018, not 2007, as claimed. Further, if the Petitioner's degree from the Iwas 
awarded in 2018, as is reflected on the diploma, and the petition was filed in November 2021 only 
three years after the apparent issuance of this diploma, we are unable to determine whether he gained 
five years progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty following its issuance. Id. 
In sum, the discrepancies in the Petitioner's assertions and evidence related to his claimed education 
leave substantial uncertainty as to whether he earned an advanced degree or its equivalent. The 
Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the 
truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). He has not done so in this case. 
Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other 
evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
In denying the petition, the Director indicated that the diploma submitted by the Petitioner in industrial 
production management was not sufficient to demonstrate that he earned the foreign equivalent of a 
U.S. bachelor's degree. As noted, the Director stated EDGE reflected that the asserted degree was 
indicative of a "Title of Technologist" diploma awarded following only two to three years ofuniversity 
study, rather than a four or five-year program required for a 'Titulo de Bacharel/Grau de Bacharal" 
degree from a Brazilian university, or a degree equating to a four-year U.S. bachelor's degree. The 
Petitioner does not assign error to this degree equivalency on appeal. 
In fact, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that he earned the foreign equivalent of a U.S. 
bachelor's degree. First, the Petitioner contended that he earned the foreign equivalent of an MBA, 
but provided no supporting documentation to substantiate that he was awarded this degree. Further, 
he contended that his academic experience combined with 13 years of related professional experience 
was the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in industrial production management. In addition, on 
5 
appeal, the Petitioner points to the expert opinion ofi !stating that the Petitioner's academic 
qualifications are the "equivalent of a US 2 Years of undergraduate Programs - Major in 
Manufacturing Operations [sic]." The Petitioner's assertions, including those on appeal, do not 
indicate that he ever earned an academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree, or the foreign equivalent of a four-year U.S. bachelor's degree plus five 
years of progressive, post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty. For the foregoing reasons, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently established that he qualifies as a professional holding an advanced 
degree. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for the underlying EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional or as an individual of exceptional ability. Because the identified reasons 
for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the 
Petitioner's remaining arguments concerning his eligibility for a national interest waiver under the 
Dhanasar 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 the applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6