dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Camera Operation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 26374966 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 19, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a camera operator, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an individual 
of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 
EB-2 immigrant classification . See Immigration 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 that the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. In 
addition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. 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. Only those 
who demonstrate "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" are eligible 
for classification as individuals of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) sets forth the following six criteria, at least three 
of which an individual must meet in order to qualify as an individual of exceptional ability in the 
sciences , the arts, or business : 
(A) An official academic record showing that the [individual] 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; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter( s) from current or former employer( s) showing that 
the [individual] has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which 
he or she is being sought; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the [individual] has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for 
services, which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations. 
If a petitioner satisfies these initial requirements, we then consider the entire record to determine 
whether the individual has a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. See 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the evidence 
is first counted and then, if it satisfies the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a 
final merits determination); See USCIS 6 Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that although the Petitioner met three of the six categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii), 1 the totality of the evidence did not establish that he has a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. On appeal, the 
Petitioner contends that he meets the remaining criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C), (D), and (F). 2 
In addition, the Petitioner claims that the previously submitted expert opinion letter demonstrates his 
exceptional ability significantly above the ordinary. 
As we agree with the Director that the Petitioner satisfied the requirements of at least three criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), we need not address whether he also meets additional criteria. However, 
meeting the minimum requirements by providing initial evidence does not, in itself, establish that the 
individual in fact meets the requirements for exceptional ability. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, 
at F.5(B)(2). Therefore, we will consider this evidence together with the balance of the record to 
1 The Director indicated that the Petitioner met the criteria of having an official academic record at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). and 
membership in professional associations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
2 The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet the criteria of having a license to practice the profession at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). commanding a salary or renumeration for exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D), and 
being recognized for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
The Director sufficiently explained the reasons why the Petitioner does not satisfy the remaining criteria, and on appeal, 
the Petitioner does not assert any specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's finding in this 
matter. 
2 
determine whether the Petitioner is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field and is thus eligible for the requested classification. 
In reviewing the totality of the evidence in a final merits determination, we consider the quality of the 
evidence. Id. The evidence of the Petitioner's educational credentials, employment letters, and 
professional membership show that he possesses the minimum qualifications to perform in his field. 
The Petitioner has a certificate from I a trade school in Brazil showing that he completed 
248 hours of courses in camera operation. 3 The employment letters list responsibilities and duties 
typical of a camera operator, such as checking and maintaining equipment, operating cameras, cranes, 
and drones to capture images with precision, and producing high quality videos for broadcasting. 4 
Also, the evidence regarding his membership with the Society of Camera Operators does not 
demonstrate that the organization have any membership requirements above those commonly found 
in camera operators actively working in the field. Qualifications possessed by most members of a 
given field cannot demonstrate a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. 
Id. 
Now we consider the expert opinion letter from an associate professor of 
media production at I I University. This letter explains the value of the media and film 
industry based on various articles and statistics and discusses the importance of camera operators to 
the industry without specific reference to the Petitioner's achievements beyond his normal day-to-day 
duties performed for his employers and clients. The letter reiterates the Petitioner's work experience 
already detailed on his resume and concludes that the Petitioner's experience "stands out" because he 
has 14 years of experience in the field, covered major events such as a large music showl I 
and the ISSF (International Shooting Sport Federation) World Cup, and has handled high quality and 
versatile equipment such as CamMate cranes. 
Although we acknowledge that the Petitioner is an experienced camera operator who participated in 
some high visibility projects, the letter does not specify which skill sets or experience possessed by 
the Petitioner place him significantly above other camera operators or what significant impact is made 
on the field by his exceptional ability as a camera operator. The expert opinion letter does not establish 
that the Petitioner's work experience and job performance have a level of expertise significantly above 
that ordinarily encountered in the Petitioner's field of camera operation. 
Hence, upon de novo review, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner does not qualify as an 
individual of exceptional ability as defined under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). As the Petitioner does not 
assert any other errors in the Director's final merits determination, we deem them to be waived. If the 
affected party does not address issues raised by the director, and those issues are dispositive of the 
case, the appeal will be dismissed based on those waived issues. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 I&N 
Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
3 The Petitioner submitted a certified English translation of a certificate stating that he completed "the course of Camera 
Operator regarding the Communication area, with 248 duration, in the year of 2007, at the Polytechnical Center." The 
certificate bears the name of I on the bottom. The certificate is accompanied by an undated and unsigned 
document listing his courses in camera operation, but this document does not show the usual information found on a typical 
academic record, such as the name of the school, dates of attendance, or grades earned. 
4 The Petitioner submitted two employment letters that demonstrate he has at least ten years of full-time work experience 
in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). 
3 
As the Petitioner did not establish eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, we need not 
address the Petitioner's assertions on appeal regarding whether a waiver of the job offer requirement, 
and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
Therefore, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies any of the criteria set forth 
in the precedent decision Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another 
independent issue is dispositive of the appeal); see also Matter of 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the eligibility for an individual of exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4