dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-A-Y-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 28,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a business development manager, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is normally attached to this immigrant 
classification. See § 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job ofier, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director, 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 established that a 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner appealed the matter to us. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, and reaffirmed' that 
decision in three motion adjudications.' 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 fourth motion to reopen. We will deny the motion. 
I. LAW 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States 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. If 
a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a 
United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
1 
Matter ofT-A- Y-, 10# 17466 (AAO July 29, 20 16) was our most recent decision in this matter. 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-A-Y-
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, as 
well as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
Since its publication in 1998, under the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service, we have 
adhered to a precedent decision establishing 
a framework for evaluating national interest waiver 
petitions. Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOJ). Recently, in .Matter qf Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), we 
vacated NYSDOT and set forth a new framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
petitions. Dhanasar clarifies that, after eligibility as an advanced degree professional or individual of 
exceptional ability has been established, USCIS may grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner 
demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence: (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. If these three elements are 
satisfied, USCIS may approve the national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
According to 8 C.P.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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
On motion, the Petitioner maintains that her master of public administration degree from 
in is a qualifying advanced degree. With the current motion, the Petitioner 
submits a webpage from the 
listing as one of the "Major Universities in In addition, she provides a 
webpage from indicating that its 
offers an "alternative to the executive MBA" (master of business administration). The 
Petitioner contends that she "would not have been accepted in without 
advanced degree and the school through their [sic] respected channels found [her] diploma officially 
recognized in the U.S." 
To qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, the Petitioner must show that 
her occupation 
meets the definition of a profession, and that she holds a qualifying advanced degree. 
Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act does not include business development managers in the list of 
professions, and the Petitioner has not established that a United States baccalaureate degree or its 
foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. Furthermore, although 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-A-Y-
the Petitioner has documented her master of public administration degree from she 
has not submitted an academic credential evaluation to establish its equivalency to a United States 
degree as required under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). We therefore affirm our previous finding that 
the Petitioner has not established her eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 
B. Exceptional Ability 
The Petitioner contends 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 the Petitioner meets at least three of the relevant evidentiary criteria at 8 C.P,R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
In our appellate decision dated July 2, 2014, we determined that the Petitioner' s degrees from 
satisfied the regulatory criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) , which requires evidence of 
"a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, 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) - (E), the Petitioner's motion does not include new evidence to overcome our 
findings that she offered insufficient documentation to meet those additional criteria. 
The regulatory criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) requires "[ e ]vidence of recognition for 
achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities , or 
professional or business organizations." On motion , the Petitioner submits presentation slides from 
her " an agenda listing her as a speaker at 
(20 15)/ and two additional reference letters prepared in support of the 
petition. 
The reference letters from 
and 
measures" for the 
professor at 
a monitor and evaluator of "policy documents on anticorruption 
discussed the Petitioner's 
training and consultancy projects.j The aforemen:tionedreference letters, the Petitioner's ' 
presentation slides, and her speaking engagement at are 
insufficient to document that she has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions 
to the industry or field by peers, 
governmental entities , or professional or business organizations. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not overcome our finding that she does not meet the regulatory criterion 
at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(P). Accordingly, the new evidence 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. 
2 We note that the Petitioner gave her presentation at after the filing date of the petition on 
December 17, 2012. Eligibility, however , must be established at the time of filing . 8 C.F .R. § 103.2(b)(l) , (12) ; Matter 
ofKatigbak, 141&N Dec. 45 , 49 (Reg ' ) Comm ' r 1971). 
3 letter was unsigned and thus of limited evidentiary value . 
3 
Matter ofT-A-Y-
C. National Interest Waiver 
The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established 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 qualifies for 
classification under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act as either an advanced degree professional or an 
individual of exceptional ability. As the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying 
immigrant classification, we need not consider whether she is eligible for a national interest waiver 
under the framework set forth in Dhanasar. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. As the evidence provided in support of the motion to 
reopen does not overcome the grounds underlying our previous decision, the motion is denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter o.fT-A-Y-, ID# 350645 (AAO Feb. 28, 2017) 
4