dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22755884 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 18, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a math teacher, 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. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C . § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska initially granted the petition; however, after issuing a notice of intent to 
revoke (NOIR) 1 and providing the Petitioner an opportunity to respond, the Director revoked the 
approval of the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not qualify for classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree. The Director further concluded that the Petitioner had 
not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in 
the national interest. 
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. 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. 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. 
1 After granting a petition, USCIS may revoke the petition's approval "at any time" for "good and sufficient cause." 
Section 205 of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1155. If supported by the record andsubstantialevidence, a director's realization that 
a petition was erroneously approved may justify revocation. Matte r of Ho, 19 I&NDec . 582,590 (BIA 1988) . ANOIR 
is properly issued if there is "good and sufficient cause" and the notice includes a specific statement of the facts underlying 
the proposed action and the supporting evidence . Matt er of Es time, 19 I&N Dec. 450, 451 (BIA 1987). Per Matter of 
Estime, "[i]n determining what is 'good and sufficient cause' for the issuance of a [NOIR] , we ask whether the evidence 
of record at the time the notice was issued, if unexplained and unrebutted , would have warranted a denial based on the 
petitioner 's failure to meet his or her burden of proof." Id. 
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. ... the 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. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent 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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 2 Dhanasarstates that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a 
matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: ( 1) that the 
noncitizen 's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the 
noncitizen 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 off er and thus of a labor certification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director initially granted the petition; however, the Director then sent the 
Petitioner a NOIR, explaining that the Director intended to revoke the approval of the petition because 
the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act; see also 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Specifically, although the record contains a copy of a diploma that indicates 
"field/specialty: taxation," awarded to the Petitioner by University, Russia, and its 
English translation, in the NOIR the Director informed the Petitioner that, without more, the diploma 
"is insufficient to qualify as an advanced degree." The Director further explained that, in the 
alternative, the record does not satisfy at least three of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), 
required for second-preference classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
2 In announcing this new framework, we vacatedourp1iorprecedent decision,MattcrofNew York State Dep't of Transp., 
22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 
In the notice of revocation, the Director specified that the American Association of Collegiate 
Registrars and Admissions Officers' (AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) 
indicates that the Petitioner's diploma from I I University is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree. The Director further noted that the record does not establish that the Petitioner has at least 
five years of post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty as a math teacher. Therefore, the Director 
concluded that the record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See section 203 (b )(2)(A) 
of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) ( defining an advanced degree, in relevant part, as a "United 
States baccalaureate or a foreign equivalent followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty"). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she responded to the NOIR with an academic evaluation "by 
Evaluation Services Inc, a member AACRAO and EDGE approved evaluation agency along with 
explanation [sic] that according to [AACRAO EDGE] the Diploma of Specialist ('Diplom 
Specialista') represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a master's degree in the 
United States." The Petitioner also resubmits the academic evaluation, along with a screenshot from 
the AACRAO EDGE website, stating the following: 
Credential Advice 
The Diplom spetsialista in architecture, law, or medicine (6 years) represents 
attainment of a level of education comparable to a first professional degree in 
architecture, law, or medicine in the United States. The Diplom spetsialista in other 
fields ( 5 years) represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a master's 
degree in the United States. 
In tum, the academic evaluation opines, in relevant part, that the Petitioner's "Diplom (Diploma) ... 
is, in level and intent, the academic equivalent of a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in 
economics, with specialization in taxes and taxation, from a regionally accredited institution in the 
United States." However, the evaluation does not identify the Petitioner's degree as a Diplom 
Spetsialista, corresponding to the AACRAO EDGE credential advice excerpt. 
We acknowledge that AACRAO EDGE informs that a five-year Diplom spetsialista in a field other 
than architecture, law, or medicine, represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a U.S. 
master's degree. However, the English translation of the Petitioner's five-year diploma does not 
indicate that it is a Diplom spetsialista. Specifically, the diploma translation begins by stating, 
"translated from Russian: Diploma of undergraduate education" ( emphasis added). The diploma 
translation further states that"[ t]he present Diploma is issued to [ the Petitioner] to the effect that he 
[sic] successfully completed the course of undergraduate education" ( emphasis added). The 
translation does not indicate that it is for the completion of concurrent or other graduate coursewmk 
Moreover, the English translation of the diploma does not use the phrase "Diplom spetsialista," 
"Diploma specialista," or any similar translation to indicate that it is a type of degree determined by 
3 
AACRAO EDGE to be equivalent to a U.S. master's degree. 3 Likewise, the academic evaluation 
referred to the Petitioner's degree as a Dip/om, not a Diplom spetsialista or any similar translation. 
The record also contains a copy of an academic transcript written in a language other than English, 
and a certified English translation of it. However, the translation of the transcript does not identify 
the student to whom it corresponds; it does not list the courses by semester or year; and it does not 
othe1wise indicate that a particular degree program was completed at any specific period of time. 
Thus, the transcript is not credible or probative evidence of the Petitioner's education. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Notably, it does not indicate that the Petitioner 
received a Diplom spetsia lista in 2009, following at least five years of education. 
Because the English translation of the Petitioner's diploma in the record specifically identifies that it 
is for the completion of undergraduate coursework and the diploma translation does not indicate that 
the Beneficiary received a Diplom spetsialista, the academic evaluator's discussion of types of 
diplomas other than the Petitioner's diploma that may be equivalent to a U.S. master's degree is 
misplaced. Furthermore, the record supports the Director's conclusion that the record does not 
establish the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. See section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Specifically, even if the Petitioner had established that her degree is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. 
bachelor's degree, the Petitioner does not assert, and the record does not support the conclusion, that 
she has at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty of teaching mathematics. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The Petitioner also does not assert on appeal that, in the alternative, she 
qualifies for second-preference classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
The Petitioner must establish that she meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 7 5-76. In other words, the 
Petitioner must show that what she asserts is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine 
whether a petitioner has met its burden under the preponderance standard, we consider not only the 
quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. 
Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). In this case, the Petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
In summation, the record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See section 203(b)(2)(A) 
of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 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); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015). 
3 As a ma tterof discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 
19 I&NDec. 791,795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we may give an opinion less weight ifit is not in accord with other 
information in the record orifit is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id.; see also Mattero{V-K-, 24 I&NDec. 500,502 n.2 (BIA2008) ("[E]xpert opinion 
testimony, while undoubtedly a form of evidence, does notpmport to be evidence as to 'fact' but rather is admissible only 
if 'it will assist the trierof fact to understand the evidence orto determine a fact in issue."'). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
We conclude that the Director properly revoked the approval of the petition because the record does 
not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree; therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established 
eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5