dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 11, 2024 In Re: 31285172 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business manager, 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 Irnrnigration 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 or trainers 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 managing partner of an oral health company who proposes to serve as the chief 
executive officer of a dental services company operating clinics in the United States. The Petitioner 
claims to be an advanced degree professional based on his bachelor's degree and over five subsequent 
years of progressive experience in his specialty. The Petitioner submitted copies of his bachelor's 
degree in law from I Iin Brazil and his academic transcript showing eight 
semesters of study. The Petitioner also submitted a credential evaluation report from GEO Credential 
Services concluding the Petitioner holds the equivalent to a U.S. Bachelor of Science degree in legal 
studies. 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 he had five 
years of progressive experience in his specialty because he did not submit letters from his current or 
previous employers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states he has been self-employed as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and 
Managing Partner of ______ since 2016 and consequently cannot provide an employer 
letter regarding his current position. The record contains varying descriptions of the Petitioner's 
position and his company. In his business plan, the Petitioner states he is a managing partner atl I [ I On the Form ETA 750, the Petitioner identified his job as owner and manager of a dental 
services business. Letters from individuals familiar with the Petitioner's work describe I I I las a franchise company. For example, O-G- 1 describes as "Brazil's 
I I J-D-F-, who owns an franchise, states the 
company "has more than 1100 franchises across the country" in Brazil. Other letters state the 
Petitioner owns franchises of ______ but do not identify him as a CEO or managing 
partner. The Petitioner did not submit evidence froml !regarding his position with 
the company. The Petitioner also did not submit evidence that the position, and the odontology 
franchising industry as a whole, normally requires that the position be filled by a person holding an 
advanced degree or its equivalent. Without such evidence of the Petitioner's specific professional 
position, we are unable to assess whether his work with ______ __,demonstrates progressive 
experience in his specialty. 
The Petitioner claims he has over five years of progressive experience based on his increasing 
responsibilities from when he was a manager at I I restaurant from 2010 to 2011 to when 
he became Executive Administrator at the I I Church from 2011 to 2016, and 
culminating in his current position with I The Petitioner claims the evidence he 
submitted with his petition demonstrates his years of progressive experience. 
1 We use initials to protect the privacy of individuals referenced in this decision. 
2 
The Petitioner initially submitted letters from J-D-F-, O-G-, E-A-A-, E-P-S-, J-F-S-, and R-O-. These 
individuals praise the Petitioner's successful work with and his contributions to 
the oral health of the communities he serves. For example, O-G- states the Petitioner opened two 
successful franchises of and in 2021 received 100 percent approval in client 
satisfaction research. E-P-S- credits the success of the Petitioner's franchise in I I with 
exponential growth in the area's economy and increased access to dental care for the community. Mr. 
J-F-S- praises the Petitioner's receipt in 2019 and 2020 of awards in recognition of his 
entrepreneurship in I I E-P-S-, J-F-S, and O-G- do not, however, discuss any of the 
Petitioner's prior professional experience or otherwise indicate how his work with I I 
constitutes progression in his specialty. 
J-D-F- lists some of the Petitioner's responsibilities at I I restaurant and credits the 
Petitioner with evolving the establishment from "a home-style restaurant to one of the largest 
restaurants in I I J-D-F- identifies himself as an entrepreneur and does not indicate that 
he ever employed the Petitioner at ____ The Petitioner did not submit a letter from his 
employer at the restaurant. 
Similarly, R-O- praises the Petitioner for his past work with the ________ in Mato 
Grosso but does not indicate that she ever employed him at the church as she is a Congresswoman 
from the State of Mato Grosso. E-A-A-, pastor of the ________ in Mato Grosso, states 
the Petitioner played a critical role in organizing and preparing large events and in the organization of 
the administrative department of one of the church's branches. E-A-A- states he "decided to hire him 
to administer and assist in the management at the to [sic] young adults alternately." E-A-A-'s letter 
appears to be missing text regarding the Petitioner's duties and position. In addition, E-A-A- states 
he decided to hire the Petitioner in 2011 but does not state when the Petitioner's employment with his 
church concluded. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted additional letters 
from E-S-G- and K-N-M-, both of whom state the main reason they purchased franchises ofl I 
I I was the Petitioner's success with other clinics he managed. While they praise the 
Petitioner's "unique qualities as CEO," they do not discuss his responsibilities in detail or otherwise 
indicate that his current position represents progressive experience in his specialty. 
In sum, the relevant evidence shows the Petitioner successfully operates franchises of 
__but does not sufficiently document his position. The Petitioner also did not submit a letter 
from his employer atl !restaurant and E-A-A- does not specify the dates, duties, and 
position of the Petitioner's employment at the Consequently, the Petitioner 
has not established that he has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in his 
specialty. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree and he does not claim to be an individual of exceptional ability. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not established that he 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 his 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 
3 
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. 
4