dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 25, 2024 In Re: 31491554 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business administrator, 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not qualify 
for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and did not 
establish 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 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 qualify for EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
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 foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is considered the equivalent 
of a master 's degree. Id. To establish this equivalent, a petitioner must submit letters from current or 
former employer(s) showing the petitioner has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate 
experience in the specialty. Id. at§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). Evidence of qualifying experience must be in 
the form of letters from current or former employers including the name, address, and title of the 
writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien. Id. at § 204.5(g)(l ). If such 
evidence is unavailable, other documentation relating to the individual's experience will be 
considered. Id. 
In addition, mere possession of an advanced degree or its equivalent is not sufficient for establishing 
a beneficiary's eligibility for this classification. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(A)(3), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (providing guidance that a petitioner must demonstrate that the 
position, and the industry as a whole, normally requires that the position be filled by a person holding 
an advanced degree). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a business administrator who proposes to direct a human resources consulting and 
recruitment company in Florida. The 
Director determined the Petitioner holds the equivalent of a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree. We agree. The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that she had five years of progressive experience in her specialty because she did not 
submit letters from her current or previous employers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims her Brazilian Work and Social Security Digital Permit and 
recommendation letters show she has over five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience in 
her specialty. To establish an equivalent to a master's degree and qualify for EB-2 classification as 
an advanced degree professional, a petitioner must submit letters from current or former employer(s) 
showing the petitioner has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the 
specialty. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). The Petitioner's Work and Social Security Digital Permit is 
not a letter from a current or former employer. 
The Petitioner also submitted letters from seven colleagues who worked with her at the 
andI I None of these individuals 
identify themselves as the Petitioner's employer at either of these institutions. On appeal, the 
Petitioner identifies I IandI I as her 
former employers. Their letters do not state that they employed the Petitioner. Mr. I I states he 
met the Petitioner at where they "were both working." He states he 
was the Technical Responsible teams in the oil and gas field while the Petitioner was an 
Administrative Assistant. Mr. supervising does not state that he supervised the Petitioner or otherwise 
employed her. Ms. I I states she worked with the Petitioner at I I 
where she is a security technician, and the Petitioner was a human resources assistant. Ms.I I 
does not indicate that she ever supervised or otherwise employed the Petitioner. Ms. I I states 
she met the Petitioner atl I where they "both occupied the same position 
as administrative assistants." Ms.I Ialso does not indicate that she ever supervised or otherwise 
em lo ed the Petitioner. The Petitioner does not assert that letters from her employers at the 
or other institutions 
are unavailable. 
Although she submitted letters from seven colleagues praising her past work, the Petitioner did not 
submit letters from her current or former employers as the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) 
requires to show at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that she has the equivalent of a master's degree and 
is eligible for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that she is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and she does not 
2 
claim to be an individual of exceptional ability. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that 
she qualifies for EB-2 classification. 
As this issue is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
determination of her eligibility for a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of 
L-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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3