dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 18, 2023 In Re: 28808725 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an early childhood and elementary school teacher, seeks classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the 
required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner 's endeavor would have national importance, that she is well-positioned to 
advance that endeavor or that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer 
requirement. 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 Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&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 that they 
qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification
, either as an advanced degree professional or as an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Advanced degree professionals must have "advanced degrees or their equivalent." Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. An "advanced degree" means a "United States academic or professional 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate," i.e. , a master's degree or higher. 
8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(2). The equivalent of an advanced degree is a "United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the 
specialty." Id. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3) states that a petition for an advanced degree professional must 
be accompanied by either: 
• An official academic record showing that the noncitizen has a United States advanced degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree; or 
• An official academic record showing that the noncitizen has a United States baccalaureate 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form ofletters from current or former 
employer(s) showing that the alien has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate 
experience in the specialty. 
Because the EB-2 visa 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Neither the statute nor the pertinent 
regulations define the term "national interest." 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) states that after EB-2 eligibility has been 
established, 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 benefit the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a 
labor certification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks to continue working as a Portuguese teacher for a Brazilian learning center in the 
United States. The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 visa classification as 
an advanced degree professional, based on obtaining a foreign degree which is equivalent to a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree, followed by five years of progressive work experience in her specialty. 
However, the Director also concluded that the Petitioner does not meet any of the three Dhanasar 
prongs, and so is not eligible for a national interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief 
regarding her qualifications under Dhanasar. As an initial matter, we will withdraw the Director's 
finding that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional. 1 
A. Advanced Degree Professional 
In order to establish her eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, the 
Petitioner initially submitted diplomas and a degree equivalency evaluation which considered both her 
formal education and her work experience. The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) 
requesting, among other things, official academic transcripts, employer letters establishing her work 
experience, and a degree equivalency evaluation which only considers her formal education and which 
provides a detailed explanation for its conclusions. In response, the Petitioner provided employer 
1 The Petitioner initially claimed that she also qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director's RFE correctly 
noted that she had only provided evidence pertaining to one of the six evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), 
which requires the submission of evidence meeting at least three criteria. In her RFE response, the Petitioner did not raise 
the issue of the exceptional ability classification, and only claimed to qualify for an EB-2 visa as an advanced degree 
professional. Therefore, we will not address her exceptional ability claims further. 
2 
experience letters, her academic transcripts, and the same evaluation she had previously submitted. 
The Director concluded that this evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner has the equivalent of a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree and five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in her specialty, and 
that she therefore qualifies as an advanced degree professional. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). However, the 
record does not support a finding that the Petitioner has the foreign equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate 
degree. 
The Petitioner has provided diplomas and transcripts regarding two Brazilian academic credentials: 
• Diploma de Professor de Educac;ao Infantile de la a 4a Serie do Ensino Fundamental (2004) 
( called a Curso Normal em Nivel Medio in the accompanying transcript); and 
• Licenciada em Pedagogia (2011) (Licenciada). 
In her Application for Alien Employment Certification, Form ETA 750, the Petitioner listed both of 
these credentials as a "BA." She also provided an academic equivalency evaluation from G-P-, which 
examines her Licenciada diploma and resume and concludes that she has attained the equivalent of a 
U.S. master's degree in education, due to having the equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate degree and at 
least five years of work experience in her specialty. 2 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we may give less weight to 
or decline to accept an opinion that is not in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. Id. In this instance, G-P- cited the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), 
an online resource regarding foreign educational equivalencies, 3 in concluding that the Petitioner has 
the equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate degree. However, EDGE states that the Brazilian Titulo de 
Licenciada program varies in length of study from two to four years, and only the four-year degree 
represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a U.S. baccalaureate degree. 4 The 
Petitioner's resume indicates that she attended her degree program from January 2009 to December 
2011, or three years. 
A U.S. baccalaureate degree generally requires four years of university studies. Matter of Shah, 
17 I&N Dec. 244, 245 (Comm'r 1977). As noted by EDGE, completion of a three-year Licenciada 
program therefore only corresponds to three years of university-level study, and not to a full U.S. 
2 The evaluation does not clearly state whether the Petitioner has the equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate degree through her 
Licenciada em Pedagogia alone, or through a combination of formal education and work experience. The relevant 
regulation requires an advanced degree equivalency to include a single-source U.S. baccalaureate degree or a single-source 
foreign equivalent degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2); see Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Michael Chertoff, No. 06-65-MO. 2006 
WL 3491005 (D. Or. Nov. 20, 2006). Therefore, to the extent that the evaluation contends that the Petitioner has the 
equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate degree through a combination of education and work experience, we find that it is not 
in accord with regulation. 
3 EDGE was created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). 
AACRAO is a non-profit, voluntary association of more than 11,000 professionals in more than 400 countries. See 
AACRAO, Who We Are, https://www.aacrao.org/who-we-are; see also Viraj, LLC v. US. Att): Gen., 578 Fed. Appx. 907, 
910 (11th Cir. 2014) ( describing EDGE as "a respected source of information"). 
4 AACRAO, Brazil Titulo de Licenciado (Licenciate), 
https://www.aacrao.org/edge/ country Icredentials/credential/brazil/titulo-de- licenciado-(licentiate) (last visited Nov. 6, 
2023, and added to the record). 
3 
baccalaureate degree. 5 G-P- based his evaluation solely on the Petitioner's diploma and resume, 
without examining her academic transcripts, and does not provide any reasoning for contradicting 
EDGE with his conclusion that the Petitioner's Licenciada is equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree 
despite the program being only three years in length. 6 Additionally, G-P- does not provide any 
information about his expertise in evaluating educational credentials. For these reasons, we will not 
accept his evaluation or grant it any evidentiary weight. Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
The academic transcript for the Petitioner's Licenciada indicates that she was admitted into the degree 
program in July 2009 after passing an entrance examination, which contradicts her resume' s claim 
that she entered this program in January 2009. However, the transcript also states that the Petitioner 
received academic credit for classes taken in a university pedagogy course in 2008. Furthermore, 
while the Petitioner was enrolled in the degree program from 2009 to 2011, the transcript indicates 
that she did not take courses during all six semesters in those years. We therefore cannot determine 
the length of the Petitioner's Licenciada degree program. 
Where there are inconsistencies in the evidence, it is the Petitioner's burden to resolve these 
inconsistencies using independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Here, the Petitioner has not resolved the contradictory evidence 
about her Licenciada length of study. The Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the 
evidence that her Licenciada is equivalent to a four-year U.S. baccalaureate degree. See Matter of 
Shah, 17 I&N Dec. at 245. 
As noted above, the Petitioner listed her Diploma de Professor de Educac;ao Infantil as a "BA" in her 
ETA 750. However, EDGE indicates that this degree is awarded upon the completion of three years 
of secondary-level education and represents attainment of a level of education equivalent to 
completing a vocational or other specialized high school curriculum in the United States. 7 The 
Diploma de Tecnico de Nivel Medio is similarly equivalent to completing a U.S. vocational high 
school curriculum. 8 Therefore, this credential is also not equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree. 
The Petitioner has not submitted an official academic record showing that she has a U.S. baccalaureate 
degree or a foreign degree which is equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate. Therefore, we will withdraw 
the Director's conclusion that she is eligible for classification as an EB-2 advanced degree 
professional. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
5 AACRAO, supra note 4. 
6 The evaluation also refers to what it calls ·'the '3-for-l Rule' [which] states that three years ofrelevant work experience 
is equal to one year of education." This method of calculating educational equivalency only applies to the baccalaureate­
level credentials of beneficiaries ofH-lB specialty occupation nonimmigrant visas. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D). We 
further note that even under this regulation, equivalence to a master's degree requires five years of relevant post­
baccalaureate work experience. Id. 
7 AACRAO, Brazil Diploma de Professor de Educw;ao Infantil, 
https ://www.aacrao.org/ edge/ country Icredentials/ credential/brazi 1/dip loma-de-professor-de-educac;:ao-in fan ti 1-e-series-
in iciais-do-ensino- ti.mdamental-( teacher-diploma- in-early-childhood-education) (last visited Nov. 6, 2023, and added to 
the record). 
8 AACRAO, Brazil Diploma de Tecnico de Nivel Media, 
https ://www.aacrao.org/ edge/ country/ credentials/ credential/brazil/ diploma-certificado-de- tecnico-de-nivel-medio-
( formerly- 2-grau )-( certificate-of-secondaiy-technical-education) (last visited Nov. 6, 2023, and added to the record). 
4 
B. National Interest Waiver 
The 
Petitioner's ineligibility for the EB-2 classification is normally a threshold issue which would also 
render her ineligible for a national interest waiver. However, since this issue was not one of the 
grounds of the Director's denial, the Petitioner has not had the opportunity to address it on appeal, and 
so it does not form the basis of this decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i) (stating that petitioners must 
be advised of derogatory information which is the basis of an adverse decision). We will therefore 
also examine her qualifications for a national interest waiver. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar test, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
When determining whether a proposed endeavor will have national importance, we examine the 
specific impact of that endeavor. Id. For example, an endeavor may qualify if it has national 
implications within a particular field, or if it has significant potential to have a substantial economic 
effect, especially in an economically depressed area. Id. In this instance, the Director concluded that 
while the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit, she did not submit sufficient evidence to 
establish that endeavor's national impact. 
The Petitioner is employed by a Brazilian learning center in Florida as a Portuguese teacher, and she 
intends to continue in this position. In her initial filing, the Petitioner described her endeavor in part 
as follows: 
I intend to create programs to keep up with Brazilian immigrant children to adapt and 
insert them into the American school environment and educational schedule. 
Posteriorly, I intend to provide community libraries with educational material created 
by me to stimulate immigrant children in learning English and American children to 
learn Portuguese serving as a bridge instrument between both cultures and to offer 
resources to promote multicultural engagement. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter stating that she will "focus on 
autistic children through [her] ABA therapy qualification," and further states: 
I intend to ... contirbute [sic] to innovative and inclusive concepts for educational 
institutions in the country besides addressing education issues and providing broader 
opportunities for immigrant children and kids with special needs whose families have 
low incomes and also boost development in vulnerable communities in [the] I I 
area ... I have the intention to keep . . . exploring my options to develop my own 
projects in the early future with my own learning center ... besides training other 
professional educators who aim to grow in the same path. 
On appeal, as in her underlying petition, the Petitioner relies heavily on the importance of the education 
and childcare industries to establish the importance of her endeavor. However, in determining national 
importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry in which the individual will 
work. Instead, the relevant question when assessing an endeavor's importance is the impact that will 
be specifically attributable to it. Id., see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (stating that an endeavor's impact may rise to the level of 
5 
national importance if it has significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or 
artistic enrichment, or to contribute to the advancement of a valuable technology or field of study). 
Much of the Petitioner's evidence discusses the importance of teachers and childcare workers to the 
United States, but the importance of an endeavor is not dictated by the occupation in which a 
noncitizen will be employed. In Dhanasar, the noncitizen's work as a science teacher was found to 
have substantial merit, but did not qualify him under the first prong because the evidence did not show 
how that work would impact the field of science education more broadly. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 893. Similarly, the record here includes support letters written on the Petitioner's behalf by 
her coworkers and parents of students she has taught, which speak very highly of the Petitioner's skill, 
knowledge, and dedication, and illustrate the impact she has had on her students. However, the letters 
do not document any impact the Petitioner has had or will have on the fields of education or childcare 
beyond her immediate professional circle. 
The remainder of the evidence also does not provide documentation of the endeavor's specific impact. 
For example, while the Petitioner states that she will create programs for Brazilian immigrant children, 
she does not state what format those programs will have, what they will teach, how many children 
they will serve, or any other information about what these programs will entail. Similarly, while she 
states that she will train other educators, she does not provide any information about where she would 
do so, what she would teach, or how she would divide her time between this and her other proposed 
activities. She also does not provide any details about the educational materials she intends to provide 
to libraries, such as what form those materials would take or how many libraries she would distribute 
them to. When assessing national importance, we look for an endeavor's broader implications. Id. at 
889. Here, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information about her endeavor to show that it 
would have implications for the broader field of education. 9 
Similar concerns apply to the Petitioner's claims that her work will have a nationally important 
economic impact. An endeavor may qualify under the first prong if it has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or have other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. The Petitioner's claims that 
her work will have an impact on the U.S. economy due to the economic importance of the education 
and childcare fields. However, as noted above, an endeavor's national importance is determined by 
the impact that is specifically attributable to that endeavor, not the collective impact of the entire 
industry that endeavor is in. Id. The Petitioner has provided no documentation quantifying any 
specific economic impact her individual endeavor will have. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376. She therefore has not established that the endeavor will have the kinds of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
Finally, while the Petitioner provides extensive documentation regarding U.S. shortages of teachers 
and childcare workers, she does not provide evidence explaining how her individual work as a teacher 
will resolve these shortages or impact them on a level rising to national importance. 10 
9 The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 
25 T&N Dec. at 376 (AAO 2010). 
10 We further note that the Department of Labor directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through the labor certification 
process. Therefore. a shortage of qualified workers in an occupation is not sufficient, in and of itselt: to establish that 
6 
The record does not indicate that the Petitioner's endeavor would be nationally important. Because 
the Petitioner has not established her eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we need 
not address her eligibility under the other two prongs and hereby reserve those issues. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant did 
not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. As such, 
we conclude that she has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. Furthermore, we will withdraw the Director's finding that the 
Petitioner qualifies as an EB-2 advanced degree professional. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
workers in that occupation should receive a waiver of the job offer requirement. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
885, see also 20 C.F.R. § 656.1. 
7