dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Automotive Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 21, 2023 In Re: 28963549 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an automotive technician, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this EB-2 classification. 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability and that a waiver of the required 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 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 dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, petitioners must 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. The regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definition: "[e}xceptional ability in the 
sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered 
in the sciences, arts, or business." In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth 
the specific evidentiary requirements for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional 
ability. Petitioners must submit documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of 
evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). However, meeting the minimum requirements by 
providing at least three types of initial evidence does not, in itself, establish that the individual in fact 
meets the requirements for exceptional ability. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. In the second part of the analysis, officers should evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety for the final merits determination. Id. 
The officer must determine whether or not the individual, by a preponderance of the evidence, has 
demonstrated a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, 
or business. Id. 
Petitioners must also demonstrate the merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if: 
• 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 
As indicated above, petitioners must meet at least three of the regulatory criteria for classification as 
an individual of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). In denying the petition, 
the Director determined the Petitioner fulfilled only two of the criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains he meets an additional two. After reviewing the evidence, we conclude the record does not 
support of finding of his eligibility for at least three. 
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or 
similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution oflearning relating 
to the area ofexceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
The Petitioner argues he submitted a copy of his diploma and an evaluation of his education and work 
experience from G-P-, who determined that "his degree, along with his work experience is equivalent to 
an [sic] U.S. bachelor's degree in automotive technology." Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual, supra, at F.5 states that "officers may favorably consider a credentials evaluation 
performed by an independent credentials evaluator who has provided a credible, logical, and well­
documented case for such an equivalency determination that is based solely on the noncitizen's foreign 
degree(s)." 
However, 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5 makes no mention of the Petitioner's assertions. 
Regardless, under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the evidence must demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's claim is "probably true." Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. We consider not only the 
quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. 
Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
The issue for this criterion is whether an individual offered "[ a ]n official academic record showing that 
the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other 
institution ofleaming relating to the area of exceptional ability" as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A).2 Here, the Petitioner submitted a copy of a "Certificate" from the I I 
I I"certif1ying] that the student [ the Petitioner] ... in the school year of 2001 
1 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 See also 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
2 
concluded the Youth and Adult Education Course with Individualized Care and Flexible Attendance at 
High School level." Moreover, the cetificate lists the following completed courses: Portuguese, 
Mathematics, History, Geography, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, and English. As discussed in the 
Director's decision, the Petitioner did not show that his certificate relates to his area of exceptional ability 
- automotive technology. Rather, the certificate appears to relate to the equivalent of a general high 
school education. Furthermore, while G-P- opined that the Petitioner holds the equivalency of a 
bachelor's degree in automotive technology, even if credible, the fact remains that the Petitioner did not 
provide "[ a ]n official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar 
award from a college, university, school, or other institution ofleaming relating to the area of exceptional 
ability," regardless of the factoring in of his work experience. Because the underlying academic record 
does not fall within automotive technology, the Petitioner did not establish he provided the required 
evidence in his area of exceptional ability. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish he meets 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). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) requires "[e]vidence ofrecognition for achievements and 
significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities or professional or business 
organizations." 3 The Petitioner indicates that he provided three recommendation letters and an expert 
opinion letter. While the recommendation letters praise the Petitioner for his skills and work, they do not 
indicate how he has been recognized for his achievements, nor do they explain how his contributions have 
risen to the level of "significant" consistent with this regulation. For instance, C-R-D-O-, C-F-, and 
L-A-A-R- described how the Petitioner developed a handcrafted technique in repairing dents while 
working for them. However, the letters do not show how his contributions have impacted or influenced 
the field or industry in a significant manner beyond his employers or clients. Likewise, the expert opinion 
letter from M-A-A- makes no mention of the Petitioner garnering recognition for his achievements or 
explaining how his contributions are viewed as being significant to the industry or field. Instead, 
M-A-A- repeats the statements from the recommendation letters and highlights the Petitioner's skills and 
abilities. Without detailed, probative information, the letters do not sufiiciently demonstrate his 
recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show he satisfies this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish eligibility for any additional criteria. Accordingly, we need not provide 
a final merits determination to evaluate whether the Petitioner has achieved the required level of 
expertise required for exceptional ability classification. 4 In addition, we need not reach a decision on 
whether, as a matter of discretion, he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver under 
3 See also 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
4 See also 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
3 
the Dhanasar analytical framework. Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 5 The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for 
the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 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 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4