dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Early Childhood Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 27, 2024 In Re: 33358432 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in early childhood education, seeks second preference immigrant 
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. 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 although the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, he did not establish that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 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. 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 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). 
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 of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
• 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. 
Id. 
As an initial matter, although the Director determined that the Petitioner is a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, upon de novo review, we disagree. The Petitioner provided a copy of 
her foreign degree and transcript, which show she began her studies in the second semester of 2008 
and completed them after the first semester of 2011. According to the American Association of 
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education 
(EDGE) entry for the Titulo de Licenciada, it is awarded following two to four years of undergraduate 
study and only the four-year program is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. 2 While 
we acknowledge the submission of an academic evaluation concluding the Petitioner's Titulo de 
Licenciada is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, the evaluation inexplicably states that 
the Beneficiary's program lasted four years, ending in 2011, and does not address or explain the 
discrepancy with the length of the program from the provided transcript. We may, in our discretion, 
use an evaluation of a person's foreign education as an advisory opinion. Matter ofSea, Inc., 19 I&N 
Dec. 817,820 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or 
is in any way questionable, we may discount or give less weight to that evaluation. Id. Further, the 
Petitioner has not established that she has five years of progressive experience in the specialty as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 3 As such, the Petitioner has not established that she is a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree and we withdraw the Director's determination to the 
contrary. 
The Petitioner proposes to establish "an educational services firm that provides: (a) early school 
Christian education planned to be headquartered in Massachusetts with two business units in Rhode 
Island and Connecticut." In addition, the Petitioner stated that her endeavor will "generate jobs and 
improve the economy for U.S. citizens starting in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and 
Connecticut." 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was of substantial merit, and we 
agree. However, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor 
has national importance. 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 We consider EDGE to be a reliable source of information about foreign credential equivalencies. See Confluence Intern., 
Inc. v. Holder, Civil No. 08-2665 (DSD-JJG), 2009 WL 825793 (D. Minn. Mar. 27, 2009); Tisco Group, Inc. v. Napolitano, 
No. 09-cv-10072, 2010 WL 3464314 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2010); Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. No. 09-13605, 2010 WL 
3325442 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2010). See also Viraj, LLC v. Holder, No. 2:12-CV-00127-RWS, 2013 WL 1943431 (N.D. 
Ga. May 18, 2013). For more information, visit https://www.aacrao.org/edge. 
3 The Petitioner provided letters attesting to her position as a "substitute basic education teacher," working thirty hours 
per week, from February 2, 2012 through October 3, 2016 and as a "basic education professor" from February 17, 2016 
until March 1, 2016. The remaining post-baccalaureate position was as a "cleaning servant" from December 7, 2011 
through February 2. 2012. 
2 
In support of national importance, the Petitioner highlights staffing and revenue projections in the 
business plan projecting that her company would employ 79 employees and generate $20 million in 
revenue, with wages totaling $11.3 million, all within its first five years of operation. However, these 
projections are not supported by details showing their basis, nor do they sufficiently demonstrate a 
significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national 
economy. Specifically, the record does not support that the creation of 79 additional jobs in this sector 
or the expected revenue generated by the company would have a substantial economic benefit 
commensurate with the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Moreover, while the Petitioner states that her company will "have substantive positive economic 
effects, particularly in [an] economically depressed area," the Petitioner has not provided evidence 
that the area where her company intends to operate is economically depressed, that it would employ a 
significant population of workers in that area, or that her endeavor would offer the region or its 
population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or related tax 
revenue. While her intentions are admirable, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence 
to support her claims. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner further claims that her "educational model presents a case where innovative educational 
practices could set precedents for national educational standards and practices." The Petitioner, 
however, has not provided evidence demonstrating that her proposed endeavor would operate on such 
a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined the petitioner's 
teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not 
impact his field more broadly. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Likewise, the Petitioner has 
not established how providing her educational services stands to sufficiently extend beyond her 
prospective students to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
Lastly, the Petitioner highlights the shortage of early childhood education professionals. However, 
such a shortage is not, in and of itself: sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
endeavor. Further, the Department of Labor directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through the 
labor certification process. 
Because the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding the two remaining Dhanasar prongs. 4 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 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