dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entrepreneurship

1 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 21, 2025 In Re: 36108097 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 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 did not 
establish that he was eligible for EB-2 Classification and a national interest waiver. We dismissed a 
subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on motion to reopen. 
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. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a personal statement, a professor's letter from the 
Iin Israel, and information on how expanding access to higher education would 
promote job creation and the U.S. national interest. The Petitioner asserts that this evidence, in 
combination with previously submitted evidence, establishes that he is a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree and that he merits a national interest waiver. 
In our prior decision, we determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and therefore, he was 
ineligible for a national interest waiver. We declined to reach any further conclusions regarding his 
national interest waiver claims as it served no meaningful purpose. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
In making our finding that the Petitioner did not establish he is a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree, we discussed evidence submitted by the Petitioner and why it was insufficient. 
We determined that the Petitioner did not establish he is a member of the professions, as the record 
did not sufficiently establish what profession the Petitioner holds. While the Petitioner listed his 
occupation as "entrepreneur" on the petition, we stated that an entrepreneur alone would not be 
considered a profession under the regulatory definition since there is no established educational 
requirement to become an entrepreneur. Further, we determined the proposed endeavor itself was not 
clear on the Petitioner's role such as whether he is an inventor, a creator of the idea or technology, or 
an educator. Without more information on the proposed endeavor and the Petitioner's role, we could 
not determine whether he is a member of the professions. In regard to his claim that he holds an 
advanced degree, he submitted a letter from the in Israel providing that 
he completed a master of science degree. However, we noted it was not corroborated by other official 
documents such as a diploma or transcript. The Petitioner also submitted an academic evaluation 
claiming he had the equivalent to a U.S. master's degree, but we did not find it persuasive. 
Specifically, we mentioned that the author stated that they have "reviewed the curriculum of this 
program," however, the curriculum was not been provided for our review; the author stated that the 
Petitioner's degree is the equivalent of a U.S. master of science degree but did not provide specific 
details on how they reached this conclusion; the author did not compare the number of credit hours 
the Petitioner completed to the number of credit hours needed to complete a U.S. master of science 
degree; and the author did not specifically compare the courses the Petitioner completed with the 
courses needed for a U.S. master of science degree. Based on the above, we did not find the academic 
evaluation to be persuasive and we could not conduct our own analysis as the documents in the record 
did not contain enough information regarding the Petitioner's degree and its U.S. equivalency. 
On motion, the evidence submitted by the Petitioner does not sufficiently address the evidentiary 
deficiencies listed in our initial decision. The professor's letter from the _______ 
I !provides that he was the Petitioner's advisor at the institute, the master of science degrees at 
the institute are considered equivalent to those granted by U.S. universities, students must complete 
24 months of academic coursework and research and submit a thesis, and graduates of the program 
have been accepted to prestigious U.S. universities. We acknowledge the content of this letter, 
however, the record still lacks evidence of an official academic record for the Petitioner, such as a 
diploma or transcript, establishing his completion of the degree program. Furthermore, the Petitioner 
has not addressed the evidentiary issues we previously discussed with his academic evaluation relating 
to U.S. equivalency of the foreign degree. On motion, the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof 
to establish that he is an advanced degree professional, and therefore he is not eligible for EB-2 
classification. As this issue is dispositive of the motion, we will not address the Petitioner's arguments 
that he is a member of the professions and that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. Based on the record, the motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2