dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Operations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18236458 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 13, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business operations specialist, seeks second preference immigrant classification as 
an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 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 of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying 
classification as an advanced degree professional, that her proposed endeavor has substantial merit, 
and that she is well positioned to advance it. Nevertheless, the Director denied the petition, concluding 
that the evidence did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance or that a waiver 
of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest 
Accordingly, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner reasserts her eligibility, arguing that the Director 
did not properly weigh or consider all the evidence and erred in the decision. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification (emphasis added), as either an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this 
classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing 
is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
{A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver .... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schoo Is, 
colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
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 in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
2 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pe1iinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). In announcing this new framework, we vacated 
our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 
215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest 
waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th 
Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionaiy in 
nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted if the petitioner 
demonstrates: (1 )thatthe foreignnational'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. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three 
prongs. 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
However, in our de nova review, we question the evidence concerning the Petitioner's foreign education 
and post-baccalaureate work experience. Therefore, we withdraw the Director's fin ding and conclude 
that for the following reasons, the Petitioner does not qualify for the underlying classification. 
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). 
As stated, we withdraw the Director's determination concerning the Petitioner's academic record and 
post-baccalaureate experience. We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to establish: (1) the U.S. 
equivalency of the Petitioner's foreign education; and (2) that the Petitioner possessed five years of 
post-baccalaureate experience at the time off iling. 
Regarding her academic records, the Petitioner claims to hold both a bachelor's and a master's degree 
in business administration from the University! I in Brazil, where she studied from 2010 
to 2016. In the initial filing, the Petitioner submitted a USA Evaluations advisory opinion from 
~-----~aprofessoratc=]University. Although I ~ providedhisopinion 
concerning the Petitioner's national interest waiver eligibility under the Dhanasar framework, he did 
not offer any analysis of the U.S. equivalency of the Petitioner's foreign academic education. For 
3 
instance, the evaluation did not discuss the Petitioner's years of study, grades, or credit hours, nor did 
demonstrate knowledge of Brazilian or U.S. academic systems or the particular ~-----~ 
university the Petitioner attended. Accordingly, this opinion letter is not probative of the U.S. 
equivalency of the Petitioner's education. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner rovided a one-page addition 
to the advisory opinion, which was signed by Senior Evaluator, ofl I 
The evaluator provided generalized information on ho ~----~prepares evaluation reports, 
in addition to the assumptions they make that higher education in the United States involves "30 to 34 
semester hours" per academic year and that a grade point average (GPA) is calculated by dividing the 
total grade points by the total number of credits. This one-page addition does not acknowledge or 
analyze the Petitioner's foreign education and therefore it is not probative of how her education relates 
to a U.S. education. We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign education as 
an advisory opinion. Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&NDec. 817,820 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an 
opinion is not in accord with other information or is in anyway questionable, we may discount or give 
less weight to that evaluation. Id. Here, the advisory opinion and generalized evaluation information 
do not offer any analysis of the Petitioner's foreign academic record. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
met her burden to persuasively establish the U.S. academic equivalency of her foreign education in 
accordancewith 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). 
We reviewed the AACRAO EDGE database to determine whether the Petitioner's foreign education 
is comparable to any U.S. degree. The AACRAO EDGE database is a reliable resource concerning 
the U.S. equivalencies of foreign academic records. For more information, visit 
https://www.aacrao.org/edge (last visited Sep. 13, 2021). The database indicated that the Petitioner's 
four-year degree in business administration is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. While the 
Petitioner's claimed post-graduate certificate of "Curso de MBA em Gestao Estrategia de Pesso as," 
does appear to be graduate level education, neither the AACRAO EDGE database nor the evidence of 
record persuasively establishes that this education is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not established that she possessed five years of post-baccalaureate 
experience at the time of filing. The record indicates that the Petitioner concluded her foreign 
bachelor's degree courses in September 2014 and received her degree certificate in January 2015. The 
Petitioner filed the instant Form 1-140 in August 2018. Accordingly, even if the Petitioner had 
acquired qualifying post-baccalaureate work experience beginning immediately after the award of her 
degree, she would still not have acquired the requisite five years of post-baccalaureate experience at 
the time she filed her petition. USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish 
eligibility for the benefit they are seeking at the time the petition is filed and they must continue to be 
eligible through adjudication of the benefit. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). Therefore, even if we were 
to accept the U.S. equivalency of the Petitioner's bachelor's degree based upon the AACRAO EDGE 
database information, this would still be insufficient to establish that the Petitioner is a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. 
Although the Petitioner provided an additional document which evidences some graduate education 
in logistic technology, we cannot ascertain from the record whether the Petitioner completed this 
course of study. For example, she did not provide her foreign diploma to evidence completion of a 
particular degree and the academic records contain no dates for the course conclusion, graduation, or 
4 
diploma issuance. As with her other academic records, the Petitioner did not provide evidence of the 
U.S. equivalency of this education. Therefore, we cannot conclude that her logistic technology 
education represents the equivalent of a U.S. advanced degree. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that she is a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria for Exceptional Ability 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of her qualifications as an individual of exceptional ability. However, 
the record does not establish that she meets at least three of the six required criteria. Therefore, she has 
not established that she qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability. 
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, 
or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning 
relating to the area of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
The Petitioner submitted an official academic record evidencing a foreign bachelor's and graduate level 
education. While this alone is insufficient to establish that she is a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, it is sufficient to establish that she meets th is criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s)from current or former employer(s) showing thatthe alien 
has at leastten years offull-timeexperience in the occupationforwhich he or she is being 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
The Petitioner claimed to have ten years of full-time experience in the field of business administration 
and operations. To arrive at ten years of experience, the Petitioner included work experience beginning 
in 2009, prior to obtaining her business administration degree. Initially, we note that the Petitioner filed 
her Form 1-140 in August 2018. Therefore, even if we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to establish 
that all her work experience was both full-time and in the business administration/operations occupation, 
the duration of such experience would nevertheless amount to less than ten years at the time she filed the 
petition. 
Although shestatedthatsheworked as a call and sales representative a~ I, the record 
does not include a letter from this employer persuasively establishing the dates of her employment or that 
the position was full-time. In addition, the record lacks sufficient information with which to conclude 
that this work experience was in the occupation of business administration/operations or that the call and 
sales representative position required specific business administration/operations qualifications. 
Therefore, we concludethattheevidence concerning th is work experience does not meet the requirements 
of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
The Petitioner provided otherwork experience evidence, including a letter from the City Hall ofO 
~ which states that the Petitioner worked full-time as an administrative agent from March 2010 to 
October 2017. Therefore, part of this experience was gained prior to the Petitioner's attainment of a 
business administration degree. Once again, if the Petitioner was hired and began work prior to obtaining 
any business administration education, we question how this would establish that this portion of her 
5 
experience meets the requirement that it be "in the occupation." Concurrently with th is work experience, 
the Petitioner also claimed to work at the I IAirport in various positions from August 2010 to 
January 2016. The employer letter states that the Petitioner began her work at the airport in a youth 
apprentice program. While valuable, an internship for youth does not suggest that she fully petiormed in 
the occupation and therefore we conclude that her experience in the apprentice program does not 
persuasively meet the requirement of being '"in the occupation." Taking her City Hall and airport 
experience together, the evidence indicates that the Petitioner worked two full-time, forty-hour per week 
jobs while also pursuing her bachelor's degree program followed by a graduate program. Although not 
impossible to accomplish such a feat, we question the accuracy and credibility of the Petitioner's 
assertions without further corroborating details. 
While we acknowledge the employer letters from the Petitioner's various positions in the United States, 
the experience in these positions appears to have been gained after the filing of the petition. Therefore, 
even if all her U.S. experience qualifies as full-time and in the business administration/operations 
occupation, the evidence would still be insufficient to establish the requisite ten years of experience 
acquired prior to the time of filing. 
For the foregoing reasons, the evidence does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) 
The Petitioner did not submit evidence indicating that a license is required to practice the profession or 
occupation of business operations specialist either in Brazil or in the United States. We acknowledge a 
document issued in 2014 by the "Federal Council of Administration Regional Business Administration 
Council," which granted the Petitioner the "[p ]rofessional identity" of administrator. The Petitioner did 
not provide evidence of the qualifications required to obtain this document or what the professional 
identity ofadministratorconfers upon her. Therefore, the Petitioner hasnotestablishedthatthis document 
is a license to practice the profession. In addition, the document itself states that it was valid only through 
September2016, while an accompanying letter states that itwasvalidthrough December 2018. Although 
possibly valid at the time the Petitioner filed her Form 1-140, it does not appear as though the document 
remained valid through to the adjudication of her petition as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
Similarly, she has not provided evidence to establish that a certification is required to practice the 
profession or occupation of business operations specialist either in Brazil or in the United States. 
Although, the Petitioner submitted numerous certificates, these appear to have been issued upon 
completion of various trainings. Certificates of training or participation are not the same as a certification 
to practice a profession. To illustrate by example, the Petitioner's training completion certificates for 
aviation security or fire safety appear both unrelated and unnecessary to participate in the business 
administration/operations occupation. Therefore, these certificates do not meet the requirement of 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
In her RFE response, the Petitioner provided evidence that she acquired a customer representative license 
from the Florida Department of Financial Services. The Petitioner has not explained what this license 
enables her to do orwhatqualificationswere required for its issuance. As stated previously, the Petitioner 
has not submitted evidence indicating that a license is required to practice the profession or occupation of 
6 
business operations specialist. In addition, this customer representative license was issued after the 
petition was filed and therefore does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under this criterion at the 
time of filing. 
Accordingly, the evidence does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
The Petitioner did not offer evidence for our consideration under this criterion. Therefore, she has not 
established eligibility under this criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
The Petitioner submitted the document issued by the "Federal Council of Administration Regional 
Business Administration Council" for our consideration under this criterion. While the document does 
appear more closely related to a membership than a license, we nevertheless have little information 
concerning the qualifications required for its issuance. Accordingly, we conclude that it does not 
persuasively evidence a membership in a professional association. As previously explained, even if valid 
at the time off iling, the document did not remain valid through the adjudication of the benefit requested 
and is therefore not evidence of a current membership. 
In her RFE response, the Petitioner submitted documentation related to membership in an internal 
commission for accident prevention (CIPA). The documents indicate that any type of public or private 
institution may admit employees into this organization and that the employees must be elected or 
appointed by other employees within theirworkplace. The documents do not suggest that professional 
qualifications are required to be elected as a member. In addition, CIPA appears to be an organization 
focused on workplace and environmental safety and not a professional association related to the 
Petitioner's field of endeavor. 
Accordingly, the evidence does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) 
Returning to~-----~ s advisory opinion, we observe that the opinion contains many 
conclusory assertions made without sufficient corroborating evidence to support them. I I 
I I largely restated the Petitioner's resume in paragraph form but added conclusions such as that 
the Petitioner held "leading and critical roles for the companies in which she has worked," that she has 
"sophisticated skills" and "demonstrated expertise," and has an "impressive record of specific 
achievements."~-----~ did not offer sufficient detai I or specific examples to substantiate how 
he arrived at his conclusions but instead offered only a generalized overview of the Petitioner's education 
and work experience. For instance,.___ _____ ..... appeared to summarily conclude that simply 
because the Petitioner has been employed and gained experience, that she necessarily has "demonstrated 
expertise." Even if we overlooked the conclusory nature otj I's statements, his letter 
7 
wou Id sti 11 not establish how the Petitioner's accomplishments have any bearing on the field of business 
administration, as opposed to being limited to the employers and clients she served. As a matter of 
discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. MatterofCaronlnt'l, 
Inc., 19 I&NDec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if 
it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. Here, 
~-----~ pledges that the Petitioner has made contributions to the business administration 
industry, but he does not provide sufficient detail or specific examples to substantiate such claims. 
Accordingly, his advisory opinion is of little probative value in this matter. 
We reviewed the numerous recommendation letters submitted by former colleagues and professors, 
however none of the authors identify how the Petitioner's accomplishments within academia or her 
workplace had any bearing on the business administration industry. Although the authors express high 
opinions of the Petitioner's abilities, education, personal qualities, and past experience, the 
accomplishments they describe do not appear to have impacted her field of endeavor. For instance, the 
letter from I !references the Petitioner's track record of achievements but does 
not explain how any of them extended beyond the classroom, whether as a student or a part-time 
professor. Similarly,~---------~provided examples of the Petitioner's impressive 
achievements in high school science, but she offered little information concerning how this constitutes 
recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry of business administration. To 
illustrate further, the letter from~-------~notes that the Petitioner brings fundamental 
contributions to any team or institution she works for, which suggests that the Petitioner's contributions 
have not reached the industry as a whole. Although he stated that the Petitioner created mechanisms and 
optimized internal processes, he did not provide corroborating details to support such claims, nor does 
the information he provided support a finding that the Petitioner's contributions were known outside of 
her own workplace. 
Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative 
value. See 1756,Jnc. v. U.S. Att 'y Gen., 7 45 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C.1990) (holding that an agency need 
not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). The submission of reference 
letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content 
of those letters so as to determine whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. Id. See also Matter of 
V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be 
evidence as to "fact"). 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's training completion certificates, photos, and evidence of 
volunteer work; however, the Petitioner has not explained how this evidence represents recognition for 
achievements and significant contributions to the business administration industry. 
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
Summary of Exceptional Ability Determination 
The record does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets at least three of the six regulatory criteria 
for exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Rather, we conclude that the evidence supports a 
finding of eligibility under only one criterion. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established her eligibility 
8 
as an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. As the Petitioner has 
satisfied only one criterion, a final merits determination is not required. 
C. National Interest Waiver 
As previously outlined, the Petitioner must show that she is either an advanced degree professional or 
possesses exceptional ability before we reach the question of the national interest waiver. The 
Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification and therefore, the 
issue of the national interest waiver is moot. The waiver is available only to foreign workers who 
otherwise qualify for classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. The documentation in the 
record does not establish eligibilityforthe underlying EB-2 classification; therefore, further analysis of 
eligibility under the framework outlined in Dhanasarwould serve no meaningful purpose. 
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the arguments regarding eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 L-A-C-, 26 
l&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant 
is otherwise ineligible). 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner hasnotdemonstratedthatshe qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or as an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 l&N Dec.127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9