dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 11, 2025 In Re: 35795655 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) classification as 
an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this classification. See 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for the requested EB-2 classification and for a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus of the labor certification. We dismissed a subsequent appeal, concluding that the Petitioner 
did not establish his eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. The 
matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. 
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). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
I. LAW 
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. 
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 U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. 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. Id. [If a doctoral degree is customarily required for the specialty, the alien must possess a 
U.S. doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. Id.] 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other 
institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) 
showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the 
occupation for which he or she is being sought; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular 
profession or occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other renumeration for 
services, which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to 
the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or 
business organizations. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides, "If the above standards do not readily apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility." 
Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. If a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether 
the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise 
and will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the 
United States. Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner states that he intends to continue his endeavor as an entrepreneur and business 
Iadministrator through his U.S.-based companies, __________I 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that we denied his appeal in error, as his appeal clearly outlined 
how the Director's decision misinterpreted and misapplied relevant regulatory standards. The 
Petitioner further contends that our decision exceeded the requirements established in Matter of 
Chawathe by applying a more detailed and rigorous review of the documents and holding the analysis 
2 
to an elevated standard. In support of his motion, the Petitioner submits a brief along with new and 
previously submitted documents. 
Evidence ofmembership in professional associations. 
The term "profession" as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) means "one of the occupations listed in 
section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree 
or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation." The Petitioner has 
claimed that his memberships in Auction ACCESS and the National Federation of Independent 
Business meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). However, we agreed with the Director 
that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner met this criterion. 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that he has demonstrated that his membership in the organizations 
qualify as professional associations based on the organizations' "selective membership criteria, 
industry relevance, and role in fostering professional development." The Petitioner further contends 
that our reliance on the Act's definition of "professional" fails to "recognize the evolving nature of 
modem professions." However, the Petitioner's record does not sufficiently establish that the 
organizations constitute professional associations as contemplated in the regulations. We therefore 
conclude the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
Evidence in the form ofletter(s)from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at 
least ten years offull-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought. 
In our prior decision, we concluded that the Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof in 
demonstrating that he had at least ten years of foll-time experience in the occupation for which he is 
being sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). We explained that the Petitioner has not provided 
sufficient evidence to overcome the Director's finding that the discrepancies in the dates of the 
Petitioner's self-employment cast doubt on his work history. On motion, the Petitioner asserts that he 
submitted a business office records from his company to support previously submitted evidence and 
confirm his employment history and responsibilities within the business. The Petitioner further 
contends that the minor inconsistencies in the record should not undermine the overall strength of his 
evidence and argues that he has sufficiently met his burden of proof However, it is the Petitioner's 
burden to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by providing independent objective evidence. 
Attempts to explain or reconcile such discrepancies without clear and competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies will not suffice. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 
(BIA 1988). Here, the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to satisfy the requirements of this 
criterion. 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation. 
We affirmed the Director's decision that the Petitioner has not met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) by producing evidence of a license to practice the profession or certification for a 
particular profession or occupation. On motion, the Petitioner contends that the license issued by the 
Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to his I I business 
demonstrates his professional qualifications to act as a licensed motor vehicle dealer under Florida 
law. The Petitioner further argues that the license being issued in his business's name rather than 
3 
directly to him is a "technicality that does not negate" his qualifications under Florida law to engage 
in motor vehicle dealership activities and maintains that the license meets the requirements to practice 
his profession. However, the regulation requires evidence of the self-petitioner's own license to 
practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation. Additionally, the 
Petitioner has not addressed our concern that he failed to provide evidence to demonstrate the validity 
of his license. Therefore, we conclude that he has not met this criterion. 
Evidence ofrecognition for achievements and sign[ficant contributions to the industry or.field by 
peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
We concluded that the record lacked evidence to demonstrate recognition for achievements and 
significant contributions to the industry or field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). On motion, the 
Petitioner contends that we did not consider the totality of the documentation, overlooked key evidence 
supporting his substantial impact and recognition-such as expert opinion letter and letters of 
recommendation, and that we failed to acknowledge his businesses' contributions to the economy and 
industry. 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, we considered the Petitioner's arguments on appeal and 
determined that he has not met his burden of proof to meet the regulatory requirements of the criterion. 
The Petitioner contends that the letters submitted on his behalf affirm his businesses' economic 
contributions, his recognition by peers and clients, and provide detailed assessments of his 
achievements and impact on the industry. However, it is important to emphasize that the regulatory 
criterion requires the Petitioner not only to demonstrate contributions to the industry or field but that 
those contributions be "significant." Here, the record fails to establish how the Petitioner received 
recognition for his achievements or made contributions to the field or industry in a significant manner. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that our determination on this criterion was incorrect. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner did not demonstrate that we erroneously applied law or policy in dismissing his 
appeal, the Petitioner has not established that his motion satisfies the requirements for a motion to 
reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Therefore, we will dismiss the motion. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4