dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OFT-A-Y-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Oflice 
DATE: JUNE 26, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a business development manager and consultant, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). After a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it 
would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, finding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, but that she had not had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
The Petitioner appealed the matter to us. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeaL and reaffim1ed that 
decision in our adjudication of five subsequent motions to reopen.
1 
Contrary to the Director's 
determination, we also found that the Petitioner had not established she qualified for the underlying 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an 
individual of exceptional ability. The matter is now before us on a sixth motion to reopen. We will 
deny the motion. 
!.LAW 
According to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 
1 Matter ofT-A-Y-, ID# 709898 (AAO Nov. 20, 2017) was our most recent decision in this matter. 
.
Mauer of T-A-Y-
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advan ced degree means any United $tates academic or professional degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaur eate 
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 . If 
a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a 
United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of exp ertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encouQtered in the sciences , arts , or business. 
Furthermore, in order to demonstrate exceptional ability, a petitioner must submit at least three of 
the types of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The record includes an . 2005 diploma from University in Bulgaria stating that the 
Petitioner completed a "one year course of study" and received a " Master's degree" in public 
administration . In our previous decisions, we found that the Petitioner had not provided an academic 
credential evaluation to establish its equivalency to a United States degre e as required under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). With the instant motion , she provides a " credential evaluation report " from 
stating that her "Archival Certificate - Master's Degree in Public Administration, 
issued by the Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria" in . 2005 is the equivalent of a 
"Master's Degree in Public Administration awarded by regionally accredited universities in the 
United States ." This evaluation, however, does not state the number of semesters the Petitioner 
completed or the number of academic credits she was awarded. The evaluation also does not list the 
educational documents from - -· University that the evaluator reviewed in reaching his conclusion . 
As the evalu ation states that it is based on an "Archival Certificate" fron1 "the Ministry of Education 
and Science of Bulgaria," it is not clear if' the credentials review ed by the evaluator were the same 
educational documents that were submitted to the record in this case. 2 
Because the evaluation does not adequately explain its conclusion that the Petitioner's 
foreign diploma is equivalent to a United States degree as required under 8 C .F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A), it is insufficient to establish her eligibility as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. Regardless, even if the Petitioner were to demonstrate her diploma's 
equivalency to a U.S. degree, for reasons discussed later in this decision the Petitioner has not shown 
that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
2 The Petitioner must resolve these ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&_N Dec. 582, 591-592 (BIA 1988). 
2 
.
Matter ofT-A-Y-
B. Exceptional Ability 
The Petitioner 's motion repeats previous arguments that she satisfies at least three of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). As discussed below, our review of the documentation provided 
on motion does not show that she meets at least three criteria. 
In our prior decisions, we found that the Petitioner's degrees from Univers ity satisfie d the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) , which requires evidence of "a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, univer sity, school, or other institution of learning relating to 
the area of exceptional ability. " With respect to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)­
(F), the Petitioner's current motion to reopen does not include new facts or evidence to show that she 
satisfies any of those additional criteria. 
The Petitioner submits webpages reflecting that she spoke at the 20 I 7 conference in 
Indon esia. She also provides a 2017 certificate stat ing that she " has atta ined alumni status fi·om 
by successfully completing the l4
1
h Session of the 
" The Petitioner ' s participation in the 
conferenc e and her attainment of alumni status both post-date the filing of the petition. Eligibility 
must be established at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) , (12). Accordingly, the 
documentation offered on motion does not establish that the Petitioner meets at least three of the six 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and that she has achieved the level of expertise required 
for exceptional ability classification. 
C. National Interest Waiver 
The remaining issue is wheth er the Petitioner has estab lished that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. As explained in our prior decisions, in 
order to qualify for a national interest waiver , the Petitioner must first show that she qua!ifies for 
classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act as either an advanced degree profess ional or an 
individual of exceptional ability. Although the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the 
underlying immigrant classification, we will briefly coqsider below whether the new facts and 
evidence provided on motion render her eligible for a national interest waiver under the framework 
set forth in Dlzanasar. 
l: Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
As noted above, the Petitioner is a bus iness development manager and consultant. The Petitioner 
states: "The vast range of industries I consult results in substanti al beneficial merit and national 
importance such as opening new jobs, growth of small to medium companies." In addition, she 
contends that "seve ral large Private Equity firr:ns in U.S. have taken a particular inter est in the 
method I have created and we are trying to incorporate this innov ative strategy development into 
several companies in their portfolio which range been [sic] from industrial, aerospace , techn ology ." 
3 
.
Matter ofT-A-Y-
To satisfy the national importance requir ement , the Petition er must demonstrate the "potential 
prospective impact" of her work. The Petition er's motion , however, doe s not includ e sufficient 
info rmation and evide nce to estab lish that her proposed work as a consultant has implications 
beyond her com~any and its potential .clients at a leve l adequate to establish the nation al importa nce 
of her endeavor: For exampl e, she does not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how her future work 
as a consultant stands to affect the industrial, aerospace, and technol ogy industries, or the business 
developm ent consulting field. Nor does the reco rd show, for instance , that the specific work the 
Petitioner proposes to undertake has wider implication s in her field or for the U.S. economy. As the 
Petitioner has not established that her speci tic e ndeavor ' s prospective impact supports a tinding of 
national importance, she has not met the first prong of the Dlwnasar framework. 
2. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the propos ed endeavor to the Petitioner's qualific ation s. The 
Petitioner asserts that her education, skills, knowl edge, record of success, consulting act ivitie s, plan 
for future activ ities , involv ement with ., a nd interest from potential customers meets this 
prong. 
While the Petitioner presents documents indicating that she particip ated in the conference 
and attained alumni status from by successfull y completing these even ts in 
2017 post-date the filing of the petition. Furthermore, the new facts and evidence she offers on 
motion do not show that her past experience renders her well positioned to advance her consulting 
projects aimed at creating jobs, foste ring the growth of small to medi um companies, and improving 
private equity firms' busines s stra tegies. ln addition, the docum ents submitted on motion do not 
reflect suff icient interest from potential customers, users, invest ors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals to demonstrate that she is well positi one d to advance her proposed business development 
consultancy. Nor does the evidence show that the Petitioner's track record of runnin g a consulting 
business , plan for future activities, and progr ess towards meeti ng her company's goals rise to the 
level of rendering her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. For these reasons , she has 
not established that she satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar fram ework. 
3. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As expl ained above, the third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that , on balance, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the req uirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. Because the Petition er has not estab lished the national import ance of her proposed 
endeavor and that she is well positioned to advance he r endeavor as req uired by the first and second 
prongs ~f the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. Accordingly, 
discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purp ose. 
3 In Dlrannsar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance 
because they would not impact his field more broadly. /d. at 893. 
4 
Matter ofT-A-Y-
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence provided in support of the motion to reopen does not overcome the grounds underlying 
our previous decision. The Petitioner has not established eligibility as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. Furthermore, as the Petitioner 
has not met the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that she 
has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofT-A-Y-, lD# 1372194 (AAO June 26, 2018) 
5