dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management / Tourism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 10, 2024 In Re: 29049409 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, who describes herself as a business manager and tourism enthusiast, seeks 
employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. 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 attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 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 offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, in part, that the Petitioner qualified for the EB-2 immigrant classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
"Advanced degree" is defined as any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign 
equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent 
of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
"Profession" is defined as 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. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term 
"national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of 
discretion, 2 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. MEMBER OF THE PROFESSIONS HOLDING AN ADV AN CED DEGREE 
As discussed, to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate 
qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or 
an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. The Petitioner does not assert­
nor does the record establish-that she is an individual of exceptional ability. Therefore, she must 
establish that she is eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 
In order to show that a petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied 
by "[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States advanced degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Alternatively, a petitioner may present 
"[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer( s) 
showing that the [individual] has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in 
the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(l), 
provides in pertinent part that "[ e ]vidence relating to qualifying experience or training shall be in the 
form of letter( s )from current or former employer( s) or trainer(s) and shall include the name, address, 
and title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien or of the training 
received." 
The record shows that the Petitioner received her degree in 2004 in business administration from a 
university in Brazil; her degree and transcripts show she received a Titulo de Bacharel(a) em 
Administra<;tio after four years of coursework. An evaluation included in the record states that her 
degree is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. We note that the evaluation supplies 
1 Profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
information from the Petitioner's curriculum vitae and argues that her years of experience are 
equivalent to post-baccalaureate experience under a "3-for-1 Rule." The assessment that the evaluator 
describes does not apply to immigrant petitions, but to a provision for certain nonimmigrant petitions. 
We also note that, while the evaluation lists the Petitioner's academic and work experience, it does 
not provide an analysis of that experience. Credential evaluations are reviewed for advisory purposes 
only; if questionable in any way, USCIS may give them less weight. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N 
Dec. 791 (Comm'r) 1988). Because the credibility of the credential evaluation is in question, we 
conclude that it holds little probative value in this matter. The Petitioner must support her assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Nonetheless, we reviewed the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers 
(AACRAO) EDGE database to determine whether the Petitioner's foreign education is comparable to 
a U.S. degree. The AACRAO EDGE database is a reliable resource concerning the U.S. equivalencies 
of foreign education. For more information, visit https://www.aacrao.org/edge. The database provides 
the following concerning the Petitioner's degree: 
The 4- or 5-year Titulo de Bacharel/Grau de Bacharel represents attainment of a level 
of education comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States. 
We agree that the Petitioner has earned the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. The 
remaining issue to be considered is whether the record shows that she has at least five years of 
progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. The Petitioner intends to operate a tourism 
business in the United States. The Petitioner claims to have several years of experience prior to 2004, 
when she worked as an intern at a bank. Because we must evaluate her post-baccalaureate experience, 
we may only consider documented experience following her graduation in 2004. 
By her own account, the Petitioner worked at a bank beginning while she was attending college and 
then continuously from her graduation in 2004 until 2010. She states she worked primarily in the 
position of Commercial Manager, where she performed the following duties: 
[I] committed management and customer portfolio administration; conducted business 
matters referring to loans and financing; did an analysis ofloan operations, prospecting, 
offering and accepting investments, offered products and services following customer 
profile and needs. I also did prospecting for new customers, monitoring and collecting 
overdue credit operations. I was in charge of the projects and implementing processes 
relevant to the area to reduce costs and create revenue. 
A letter from a former superior at the bank where the Petitioner worked attests to her receipt of "several 
awards in sales campaigns" and her professionalism "with client portfolio management, identification 
of business opportunities and customer acquisition; [p]reparation of proposals and budgets; 
[r]eporting, customer services, [ and] proposal analysis." The letter, however, does not specify whether 
the Petitioner was employed full- or part-time, provide specific dates of employment, or describe the 
Petitioner's specific duties and positions with the bank. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(l). Additional letters 
from colleagues at the bank attest to her managerial skills but also do not provide specific information 
concerning her position, such as specific duties and dates of employment. Id. Because the Petitioner's 
endeavor is to manage a tourism business, it is not clear how her work at the bank relates to her stated 
3 
specialty as an entrepreneur operating a tourism business. These letters do not serve as probative 
evidence of at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience. 
We note that, while the Petitioner states that she led her own business from 2011 to 2020, the record 
does not include documentation relating to the nature of that business or provide details concerning its 
operation under the Petitioner's ownership or management. The Petitioner's curriculum vitae depicts 
her occupation as "CEO / Partner" of a company in Rio de Janeiro from May 2011 to December 2020; 
it provides a generalized description of duties, such as "purchase of products, logistics of entry and 
exit of goods, business strategy, marketing and layout." The only indication that the Petitioner may 
have operated a business during that time period comes from a letter from a friend who operated a 
store in a mall where the Petitioner was working; she states that she met the Petitioner in 2012 and 
that the Petitioner "performed the activities of purchasing, store management, and customer service." 
A letter from another friend states that they met doing volunteer work in 2012 and highlights her work 
as a manager for a project at their church, and several additional letters from friends speak to her 
personal character. While these letters describe the Petitioner's personality and work ethic, they do 
not describe specific employment experience or timeframes to demonstrate at least five years of 
progressive experience in her specialty as an entrepreneur and manager of a tourism business. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.S(g)(l). 
The Petitioner states that she also managed an element of the Olympic Games in 2016, and a letter 
from a colleague who worked with the Petitioner during the 2016 Olympics lauds her professionalism 
in leading a team charged with managing athletes' meals. The record, however, does not include 
probative evidence of her employment at the event from a supervisor or specify her period of 
employment. The Petitioner's assertion that she was employed as a team lead at the Olympic Games 
is not supported by probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate progressive experience in her 
specialty. 
The record also includes a letter from a partner at a market and grocery store where the Petitioner 
claims previous employment; the author attests that the Petitioner worked as an administrative 
manager from September 201 7 to October 2019. This letter, which describes her duties and the caliber 
of her work managing the business, meets regulatory requirements to demonstrate her experience 
managing a store for two years. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(l). 
The Petitioner submitted business formation documents for her tourism company in Brazil, and the 
authors of several letters spanning from 2020 to 2023 mention either receiving assistance in planning 
vacations or their intention to have the Petitioner assist them in planning future trips. We note that 
several of these letters discuss services provided by the Petitioner-or services that the authors intend 
to receive from the Petitioner-which post-date February 2022, the filing date of the petition. As such, 
those letters cannot be used as supporting evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Even if all of the letters 
submitted qualified as supporting evidence, which they do not, the letters are not accompanied by 
probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate when the Petitioner operated the company, whether she 
worked foll- or part-time, or the specific duties she performed that would indicate progressive 
experience in her specialty. The record does not contain tax documents, invoices, or bank statements 
that would show when and whether she operates the company. The evidence that does include 
definitive dates of employment shows that the Petitioner was employed in a business management role 
at a market for just over two years. While the documentation of record shows that the Petitioner has 
4 
two years of management experience, it does not demonstrate that she has at least five years of 
progressive post-baccalaureate experience managing a business in the tourism industry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits several letters previously present in the record. She also submits 
an email from 2022 that provides what appears to be a link to her business-possibly in partnership 
with another tourism business, although that is not clear-as well as another email from 2022 
confirming her registration with a stroller rental company. We have considered these newly submitted 
documents, the initial business formation documents, along with letters from people attesting that they 
have received or will receive assistance from the Petitioner in planning their vacations; however, 
without more, this material does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner has at least three years 
of post-baccalaureate experience in the tourism specialty through this business. While the record 
demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree and has two 
years of progressive experience in business management, the record does not show that she has at least 
five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the tourism business specialty. Further, the 
record does not include evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's intended occupation qualifies as 
a profession requiring the attainment of at least a bachelor's degree for entry. See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3). 
The Petitioner has not established eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national 
interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the 
Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not 
required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 
see also Matter ofL-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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not established that she meets the requirements ofEB-2 classification. Her petition 
will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5