dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 25442978 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 7, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a civil engineer , 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 classification . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C . 
§ 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not established eligibility as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional 
ability . 1 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 of Chawathe, 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. 
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. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definition: "[e]xceptional ability 
in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the sciences, arts, or business." 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. Petitioners must submit documentation that satisfies at least three of the six 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(k)(3)(ii) . However, meeting the minimum 
requirements by providing at least three types of initial evidence does not, in itself, establish that the 
individual in fact meets the requirements for exceptional ability . See 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.5(B)(2) , https: //www.uscis.gov /policymanual. In the second part of the analysis, officers should 
evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety for the final merits 
determination. Id. The officer must determine whether or not the petitioner, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, has demonstrated a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered 
in the sciences, arts, or business. Id. 
1 The Director did not make a determination regarding the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Next, a petitioner must demonstrate that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement 
"in the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 
889 (AAO 2016) provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
As indicated above, the Petitioner must first meet at least three of the regulatory criteria for 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). In denying 
the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled only one criterion, official academic 
record at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she satisfies two 
additional criteria. 3 Although the Petitioner presents further evidence establishing that she meets the 
membership criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E), she does not fulfill the achievements and 
significant contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), discussed below. 
The Petitioner contends: 
The educational background, professional experience, and superb skills of the [Petitioner] 
enabled the [Petitioner] to contribute to her field and will allow her to continue to do so 
in the future. 
Based on the documentation in the record, [the Petitioner] clearly established that this 
criterion has been met, and USCIS erred in finding otherwise. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) requires "[e ]vidence ofrecognition for achievements and 
significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities or professional or business 
organizations."4 The Petitioner does not specifically indicate her achievements and significant 
contributions; identify the peers, governmental entities or professional or business organizations; and 
elaborate or discuss the "documentation in the record." Furthermore, the Petitioner does not explain how 
the Director erroneously erred in deciding this criterion. 
Notwithstanding the above, in response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner only 
referenced an "expert opinion" letter for this criterion. The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted a 
letter from Dr. J-A-L-, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at 
University. The letter, which mainly discusses Dhanasar's three-prong analytical framework, 
summarized the Petitioner's educational background, indicated a research project, and listed her 
professional experience. However, the letter does not show that the Petitioner has been recognized for 
her achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field. The letter does not provide specific 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 The Petitioner does not contest the Director's decision relating to her eligibility as an advanced degree professional. 
Therefore, we consider this issue waived. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 l&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
4 See also 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
2 
information identifying the Petitioner's achievements and explaining how her contributions rise to a 
significant level. Without detailed, probative information, the letter does not sufficiently demonstrate her 
recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for at least three criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) - (F). Therefore, we need not provide a final merits determination to 
evaluate whether the Petitioner has achieved the required level of expertise required for exceptional 
ability classification. 5 In addition, we need not reach a decision on whether, as a matter of discretion, 
she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 6 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. 
5 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
6 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 alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3