dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Culinary Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 27, 2024 In Re: 34062245 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chef and entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Texas Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that, although the Petitioner 
qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, the record did not establish 
that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. We dismissed the subsequent 
appeal. The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motions. 
In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the record did not demonstrate the Petitioner qualifies as 
an advanced degree professional. 1 Specifically, we explained that the credential evaluation does not 
state that the Petitioner's foreign degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, but rather that the 
recommended U.S. equivalency is "completion of at least three and one-half years of course work" 
toward a four-year bachelor's degree program at an accredited institution of higher education in the 
United States. We also concluded the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence, in accordance 
with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l), to establish at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty following attainment of a bachelor's degree. We explained that, although the Petitioner 
provided letters of recommendation, only one of them was from a former employer and that it 
described her training during an internship that was completed prior to obtaining her degree in 2018. 
1 An advanced degree is 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). 
Regarding the Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver, we concluded the Petitioner met the 
substantial merit element of the first prong of the Dhanasar analysis but did not demonstrate that the 
potential prospective impact of the endeavor rises to the level of national importance. We addressed 
the Petitioner's contentions that the Director considered only the endeavor's geographical breadth and 
potential to employ U.S. workers and did not sufficiently consider that the endeavor impacts a matter 
that is the subject of national initiatives, as well as the Director improperly relying on Matter ofNew 
York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence 
have the potential to change the outcome). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may 
grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner states that our conclusion that she does not possess the equivalent of a U.S. 
bachelor's degree "was clearly incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time 
of its issuance" and references her foreign degree, transcripts, American Association of Collegiate 
Registrars and Admissions Officers Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), and the 
credential evaluation. But the Petitioner does not address the deficiencies outlined in our decision 
regarding the credential evaluation's repeated conclusion that the U.S. equivalency of her academic 
studies is a "completion of at least three and one-half years of course work" toward a four-year 
bachelor's degree program at an accredited institution of higher education in the United States. 
Notably, the evaluation relies on the "three-for-one" rule, which according to the evaluator, "states 
that three years of work experience and/or specialized training is equivalent to one year of 
corresponding university-level training." The evaluator's reliance on the "three-for-one" rule is 
misplaced. The "three-for-one" rule is not contained in the regulations regarding the immigrant 
employment petitions. See 8 CR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) (limiting the "three-for one" rule only to 
education and specialized training requirements of the H visa). 
The Petitioner also states she submitted sufficient evidence showing that she has at least five years of 
post-baccalaureate work experience in the occupation, but does not address our conclusion that the 
letters do not meet the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l), which states that evidence 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 petitioner or of the training received. As noted in our appellate dismissal, 
only one of the letters was from a former employer and although the letter described the Petitioner's 
training, it was prior to her obtaining her degree in 2018. Therefore, the record does not establish that 
the Petitioner possessed at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the 
specialty. 
Because the Petitioner has not established that her degree is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's 
degree or that she has five years of progressive experience in the specialty, we cannot conclude that 
the Petitioner has established eligibility as an advanced degree professional. For this reason alone, the 
petition is not approvable. 
2 
Regarding national importance, the Petitioner continues to claim that we only considered the proposed 
endeavor's geographical implication and potential to employ U.S. workers rather than "the applicable 
criterion (national initiative) for establishing national importance." She asserts that her "services do 
generate broader positive implications rising to a national scale of benefits." While we acknowledge 
the submission of three articles regarding nutrition and food/nutrition consultants generally, they focus 
on the importance of the field and not the Petitioner's specific endeavor. When determining national 
importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which 
the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes 
to undertake." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). 
The Petitioner also highlights that her proposed endeavor will "be beneficial not only to herself and 
her clientele but most importantly to the US healthcare system and economy due to the solid 
prospective of potential of increasing [ small to medium-sized businesses] operational acumen, thus 
elevating the employment level, businesses' revenue, and country's international leadership." 
However, as discussed in our dismissal of the appeal, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating 
evidence to support these claims of her business' substantial economic benefits to the United States. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established 
that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued 
our decision. Therefore, the motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3