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: NOV. 20.2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-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 otTer 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 the petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 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 (dDhanasar, 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 otTer. 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 reaffirmed that 
decision in our adjudication of four subsequent motions to reopen.
1 
Contrary to the Director· s 
determination, we also found that the Petitioner had not established she qualified f(w 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 fifth motion to reopen. We will 
deny the motion. 
I. 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 at1idavits or other documentary evidence. 
1 
Matter ofT-A- Y-, ID# 350645 (AAO Feb. 28, 20 17) was our most recent decision in this matter. 
.
Matter ofT-A-Y-
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. 
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 101 (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. 
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 
On motion, the Petitioner provides information indicating that her occupation meets the definition of 
a profession. In addition, she maintains that her master of public administration degree from 
in Bulgaria is a qualifying advanced degree. The record. however. does not contain an 
academic credentials evaluation to establish her foreign degree's equivalency to a United States 
degree as required under 8 C.F.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 
On motion, the Petitioner 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 appellate decision dated July 2, 2014, we determined that the Petitioner's degrees from 
satisfied 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, 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 show that she 
satisfies any of those additional criteria. 
2 
.
Matter ofT-A-Y-
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." With the current motion. the Petitioner submits two 
webpages reflecting that she served as of the 
beginning in 20 16? In addition, she provides an email indicating 
that she participated in the' in California in 2017. 
The Petitioner's service as co-chair for and participation in the 
both post-date the tiling of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of 
filing. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.2(b)(l), (12). Regardless, the aforementioned wcbpages and email are 
insufficient to demonstrate 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.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 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. 
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 qualities J(Jr 
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 \vhether she is eligible for a national interest waiver 
under the framework set forth in Dhanasar. 
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. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter (~lT-A-Y-, ID# 709898 (AAO Nov. 20. 2017) 
2 
This material indicates that is comprised of alumni and "'not just 
does not show that the Petitioner holds a baccalaureate, master's degree, or doctorate tl·om 
Graduates." The record