dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Automotive Repair

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 23, 2024 In Re: 31125045 
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 or as an individual of exceptional ability. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l l 53(b )(2)(B)(i). 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that he qualified for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. The 
Director also determined that the Petitioner did not merit a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. 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 afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/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. 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). 
"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). Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 ( AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that users 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The 
Petitioner, who specializes in automotive paintless dent repair, or PDR, intends to operate a repair 
facility in the United States. As noted above, to demonstrate eligibility as an individual of exceptional 
ability, a petitioner must initially submit documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories 
of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). The Petitioner initially claimed to satisfy all six 
categories, and the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) requesting documentation to support 
his claims that he met the requirements of each category. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner did 
not address the categories concerning a license or certification (C) or salary (D). The Director 
determined that the Petitioner satisfied the categories at (B) regarding his years of experience in his 
occupation, and the record supports that determination. The Director also determined that the 
Petitioner met the requirements for the category at (E) concerning his claim of membership in 
professional associations; as discussed later in this decision, we disagree with that determination. 
Finally, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not submit evidence sufficient to establish his 
qualifications under the category concerning an academic record relating to his claimed area of 
exceptional ability (A) or the category related to recognition for achievements and significant 
contributions to his field (F). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that users "erroneously denied" the petition and "imposed novel 
substantive and evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations." The Petitioner, 
however, does not identify any unusual requirements imposed, nor does he specify how the Director 
erred or what in the decision was erroneous. 2 The Petitioner also contends, without further 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Goining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Comts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 An appeal must specifically identify any enoneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
2 
explanation, that the Director applied a stricter standard of proof than the preponderance of the 
evidence3 and "did not give due regard" to the evidence submitted. The Petitioner does not specifically 
articulate any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. This alone is grounds for summary 
dismissal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Nevertheless, as more fully discussed below, we agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner has not met the requirements of at least three of the six categories at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) to establish his eligibility for the EB-2 classification. 
An official academic record showing that the individual has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of 
learning relating to the area ofexceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
The Petitioner submitted documents reflecting his completion of several courses, including training to 
repair hail damage and complete aluminum autobody work. The Director determined that the 
certificates submitted did not qualify as official academic records. On appeal, the Petitioner points to 
the submitted evidence as establishing his eligibility under this criterion. The record includes 
certificates froml Irelated to his completion of autobody repair courses and a certificate 
stating that he "is awarded this master craftsman certificate for Vale PDR assessment on March 11, 
2023." The record does not include supporting documentation demonstrating that the provided 
certificates originated from a college, university, school, or other institution ofleaming. The Petitioner 
provided a high school transcript and certificates from thel I 
for his completion of a courses titled "Purpose and Quality of Life: Discoveries for Personal 
Development" and "Remote Work." The Petitioner did not submit evidence to show how these 
courses relate to his purported area of exceptional ability. As such, the Petitioner has not met the 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence ofmembership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
The Petitioner provided documentation indicating his membership in the National Alliance of 
Paintless Dent Repair Technicians-or NAPDRT-including a document explaining the alliance's 
mission and vision. Although the Director determined that the documentation met the requirements 
of this criterion, we observe that the record does not include evidence to demonstrate that the NAPDRT 
is a professional association. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "profession" as any 
occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation. Accordingly, in order to qualify as a professional 
association, the association must require that its members be members of a profession as defined in 
the regulation. The documentation in the record does not indicate that NAPDRT membership requires 
the attainment of, at minimum, a baccalaureate degree related to autobody repair. Therefore, we will 
withdraw the Director's determination as the submitted evidence does not establish that the Petitioner 
has satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
3 See INS v. Cardoza-Foncesca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 ( 1987) ( discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance 
of an occurrence taking place). 
3 
The Petitioner submitted letters of support from previous employers, colleagues, and potential 
investors in his business discussing his professionalism and expertise. The Petitioner also provided a 
certificate of participation and photos related to an award that he won for setting a record for auto 
repairs at a competition. The Director determined the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that 
the Petitioner was recognized for achievements or significant contributions to the autobody repair 
field. On appeal, the Petitioner points to letters of support and states that the authors' praise for his 
skills and assertions of the potential for his business to succeed in the United States "provide 
compelling evidence of his impact and success." As the Director discussed, while these letters 
highlight the Petitioner's talent in the field of autobody repair and assert his positive contributions to 
his previous employers' businesses, none of the submitted letters serve as objective evidence of 
recognition for achievements and significant contributions to his field. The Petitioner must support 
his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376. The Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to demonstrate his eligibility under this criterion. 
Because the Petitioner has not established that he meets three of the six evidentiary criteria under 
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii), he has not met the initial requirement to demonstrate his eligibility as an 
individual of exceptional ability. Therefore, we need not conduct a final merits determination of 
whether he is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. Nevertheless, we have reviewed the totality of the 
evidence and conclude that he does not meet the elevated standard for this classification. While the 
Petitioner may have experience in the field of autobody repair, the record does not show that his level 
of expertise is unusual or stands out in the field. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability. Therefore, he is ineligible for a national interest waiver. Because the identified 
reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
remaining arguments concerning eligibility 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 an applicant is otherwise 
ineligible). 
ITT. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements of EB-2 classification. The petition 
will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4