dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Bioengineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 22, 2024 In Re: 31383280 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a bioengineer, prosthetics researcher, and entrepreneur 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. 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 although the Petitioner 
established her eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, she did not show that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. This matter is now before us on appeal, which we review de novo. 
Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 53 7, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). The Petitioner bears the burden of 
proof and must establish her eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To be 
eligible for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first establish eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 visa classification, as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional 
ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(A), (B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(l). 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate, 
pursuant to section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, that they warrant a discretionary waiver of the job offer 
requirement "in the national interest" by satisfying all three prongs as set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), which states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner establishes that: 
(1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) they are 
well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, waiving the job offer and thus 
labor certification requirements would benefit the United States. Id. 
1 See, e.g. , Brasil v. DHS, 28 F.4th 1189 (11th Cir. 2022) (concluding that the national interest waiver determination is 
nonreviewable and discretionary in nature) . 
II. EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
As a preliminary matter, to establish that the Petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree for EB-2 
classification purposes, her petition must 
be accompanied by an official academic record evidencing 
a U.S. advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). "Advanced 
degree" means a U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a 
baccalaureate. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the 
equivalent of a master's degree. Id. The Petitioner therefore may alternatively establish that she holds 
an advanced degree for purposes of EB-2 classification by presenting an official academic record 
evidencing a U.S. baccalaureate or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters 
from current or former employer( s) showing at least five years of progressive post-degree experience 
in the specialty. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l). 
The Petitioner has not established that she has a U.S. or foreign equivalent advanced degree, or that 
she has a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree (followed by five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty), as she claims. We therefore withdraw the Director's determination to the 
contrary that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as "a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree in Biomedical Engineering . . . followed by at least five years of 
progressive experience in field of specialty." 2 
As evidence of a U.S. equivalent bachelor's degree, the Petitioner submitted copies of two Venezuelan 
"Degree Certificates" issued in November 2013 and December 2015, respectively. The 2013 
certificate conferred "the title of Higher University Technician in Electromedicine" on the Petitioner; 
and the 2015 certificate conferred on her "the title of Biomedical Engineer." However, the two 
certificates do not indicate the type of degree she was awarded or specify the length of the academic 
programs. The Petitioner did not submit any underlying official academic record, such as transcript 
for each program, and did not provide an independent academic evaluation explaining and attesting to 
the claimed educational equivalency of each degree, compared to that of a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
The 2013 certificate listing the title of higher electromedicine technician indicates, consistent with the 
Petitioner's resume description of this title, that she obtained a technical degree, rather than a 
bachelor's degree; and her own assertion in a corresponding Form ETA-9089 she submitted also states 
it is an associate degree. The Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), which we consider 
a reliable source of information on foreign credential equivalencies, further consistently indicates that 
a "Higher Technician" degree represents a level of education comparable to "2 to 3 years" of university 
study in the United States. 3 Although she generally states on her resume that she attended a university 
in Venezuela from 2009 to 2013 to obtain her technician title, the record does not contain any evidence 
that this technical degree is in fact equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, which generally requires 
four years of university-level education. See Matter ofShah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
2 Other than this conclusion, the Director provided no analysis as to the Petitioner's EB-2 classification eligibility. 
3 See https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/credentials/venezuela (last accessed August 22, 2024). EDGE is a web-based 
resource for the evaluation of foreign educational credentials created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars 
and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). AACRAO is a professional association of higher education admissions and 
registration professionals who represent academic institutions located in over 40 countries. 
2 
The 2015 certificate listing the title of biomedical engineer also does not establish that it is equivalent 
to a U.S. bachelor's degree. According to EDGE 4, a Venezuelan degree awarding a "Professional 
Title of ... Engineer" evidences a degree following completion of a "5 to 6 year" university program, 
a level of education comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Although the Petitioner was awarded 
"the title of Biomedical Engineer," the certificate does not indicate that she was specifically given a 
professional title ('Titulos Professionales") of engineer as EDGE indicates. The record does not 
include an official academic record showing the years of study completed for the degree, but reflects 
that the Petitioner's engineer title was awarded only two years after she obtained her 2013 technician 
title from the same university. Although her resume generally indicates that she spent a total of six 
years from 2009 to 2015 to obtain her engineer title, the record does not contain any evidence 
independently substantiating her claim that this degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
Therefore, the Petitioner's degree certificates and her general assertion that they are a "dual bachelor's 
degree" do not establish that she has a foreign degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree for EB-2 
classification purposes. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B); see also SnapNames.com, Inc. v. Chertoff, 
2006 WL 3491005 (D. Or. 2006) (explaining that where the beneficiary is required to hold a bachelor's 
degree or a foreign equivalent, a single degree is required and they cannot combine experience or 
education to supplement a three-year degree). 5 The Petitioner also claimed below that she completed 
an online master's program offered by ___________ in Spain. However, she did 
not submit any probative evidence that she has in fact completed this program and was awarded a 
degree equivalent to a U.S. master's or other advanced degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). 
Consequently, considering the foregoing, the Petitioner has not established that she qualifies for the 
EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
Although the Director did not address this issue, the Petitioner may alternatively seek EB-2 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability, which requires her to first satisfy at least half of 
the six evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The record reflects that she generally indicated 
below she is a person of exceptional ability without specifically claiming her eligibility for the EB-2 
classification on this basis and meaningfully identifying evidence relevant to the regulatory criteria. 
Moreover, the record does not establish that she has met at least three of the regulatory criteria. Other 
than generally highlighting the important roles she played in her previous work positions and 
reiterating her prior duty descriptions as listed on her resume and numerous support letters, she did 
not claim or submit evidence below, and the record on appeal does not demonstrate, that she has "at 
least ten years of foll-time experience in the occupation for which [she] is being sought"; she was a 
member of "professional associations" at the time of filing; or she was recognized "for achievements 
and significant contributions to the industry or filed by peers, governmental entities, or professional 
or business organizations." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), (E), (F). Although she generally claimed 
below she has earned "a high salary" and "has developed important renumerations for so many years," 
the only related evidence-comprising two pages of 2022 documents listing net payable social benefits 
of"4,163" and gross income of"l8,618" 6-does not show that she has "commanded a salary, or other 
renumeration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). In 
making the assertion as to high salary, she also mistakenly cited to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (ix), 
which set forth different evidentiary criteria relating to individuals with extraordinary ability. As she 
4 See https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country credentials/venezuela (last accessed August 22, 2024). 
5 Absent evidence establishing that the Petitioner has a U.S. bachelor's or foreign equivalent degree, no purpose would be 
served in reaching whether she has the requisite five years of post-degree experience. 
6 The translated financial statements do not indicate these figures were converted into U.S. dollars. 
3 
did not meet the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), she necessarily cannot show she has met at 
least three of the six criteria as set forth in that provision, as required. Consequently, the Petitioner 
also has not established she is a person of exceptional ability for EB-2 classification purposes. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
Without first establishing his EB-2 classification eligibility, the Petitioner cannot qualify for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Even if we were to consider the merits of this waiver, we 
agree with the Director's ultimate decision denying it because the Petitioner's documentary evidence 
did not satisfy the first prong of the three-prong Dhanasar framework for adjudication of national 
interest waivers. The first prong, "substantial merit" and "national importance," focuses on the 
specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The 
endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
The Director determined that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, she 
did not show that it has national importance and thus did not meet Dhanasar' s first prong. She alleges 
that the Director failed to consider all relevant evidence and apply the correct evidentiary standard. 
The Petitioner intends to work as a bioengineer and operate her own company that engages in 
sustainable prosthetics research and development in designing innovative devices that enhance 
mobility and sensory functions for individuals with limb loss or sensory impairments. 
Under the applicable preponderance of the evidence standard, we consider not only the quantity, but 
also the quality, including relevance and probative value, of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 375-76; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
In reasserting that her proposed endeavor has national importance, the Petitioner relies on her 
academic credentials and professional experience, as indicated in her resume, business plan, an expert 
letter, other support letters, as well as the same general industry reports she submitted below pertaining 
to the significance of the prosthetics industry. 7 She further reasserts that, given her background that 
proves her qualifications for the market and its high demands, her proposed business will have 
substantial positive economic and societal benefits. But the above referenced evidence focuses on her 
experience and skills and relates to Dhanasar' s second prong, which relates to whether an individual 
is well-positioned to advance a proposed endeavor and "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor 
to the foreign national." Id. at 890. For assessing the national importance of an endeavor under 
Dhanasar's first prong, we look to its "potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. Thus, as relevant 
here, we assess whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national or 
global implications in the field or industry in which she proposes to engage, rather than the importance 
of field or industry itself. Id. Here, as owner and primary investor of her company, the Petitioner 
proposes to lead it by utilizing her expertise on the latest technologies in designing prosthetics devices 
for all potential customers, including wounded U.S. veterans. But the Petitioner's evidence does not 
show that her claimed business and research methods and innovative products were or would be 
7 She submits on appeal various unpublished decisions from this office. We are not bound by unpublished decisions as 
they are only applicable to individual cases for which they are issued. She does not otherwise submit any new evidence. 
4 
adopted by the industry, made any impact in the field, or otherwise have far-reaching implications. 
Further, the industry reports generally describe the industry's importance and do not relate to the 
specific endeavor she proposes to undertake. Although we acknowledge the proposed work could 
have a positive impact on her business and career, she has not persuasively explained, and the record, 
including her business plan, does not demonstrate how her work would have the broader implications 
for the industry and U.S. economy as she claims, beyond her business and potential customers. 
The record, for instance, does not show that the proposed endeavor would have "significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers" or "substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area," which may indicate national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Although 
the business plan states that she will be the primary investor-owner of her company with an initial 
investment of $10,000 and additional funds upwards of $60,000, the record does not include any 
probative evidence corroborating this assertion, such as the availability and source of the funds and 
transaction records. The Petitioner also does not specifically claim, and the record does not otherwise 
indicate, that her business would directly or indirectly benefit economically depressed areas. The 
business plan includes a "Personnel Plan" with general job descriptions for a CEO, consultants, 
research scientists and engineers, and administrative assistants. But she does not specifically claim, 
and the record, including the business plan, does not indicate, that she will hire any U.S. workers. The 
record also does not contain any evidence-based justification for the staffing descriptions included in 
the business plan, which is also devoid of any information on hiring criteria or process. Further, 
although the business plan includes five-year financial projections for certain limited categories, it 
includes no information on the number of potential employees or related expenses. The business plan 
nonetheless conjectures that her company in its fifth year of operation is projected to spend a total of 
about $589,000 in expenses, offset by its total revenue of approximately $933,000, ultimately resulting 
in a net profit of around $325,000. However, these projections lack corroborating evidence that would 
objectively substantiate them, such as independent basis for the claimed net revenue, expenses, and 
the source of the projected income. The Petitioner's reliance on her business plan, aspirational 
assertions, support letters, and general industry articles, thus, do not establish a significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic impact that may indicate national importance. 
While we acknowledge her desire to contribute to the U.S. prosthetics industry, she has not established 
with specific, probative evidence that her proposed endeavor will have broader implications in her 
field, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or have substantial positive economic or 
societal effects rising to the level of national importance. The Petitioner therefore has not met 
Dhanasar's national importance prong to establish her eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
As the identified grounds for denial, the Petitioner's inability to establish her eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 classification and satisfy Dhanasar's first prong as it relates to a national interest 
waiver, are dispositive of this appeal, we decline to reach the remaining appeal arguments as to the 
second and third prongs of the framework. See, e.g., INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(stating that agencies are not required to reach issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5