dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Event Planning

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 29, 2024 In Re: 31842679 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a CEO/Entrepreneur event planner, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-
2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as an 
individual of exceptional ability, 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
qualify for the underlying EB-2 classification and had not established 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 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. 
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.... [T]he 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. 
Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 USC § 1101(a)(32), provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall 
include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(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. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i i). 
Furthennore, while neither the statute nor the pe1iinent 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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 
may, as matter of discretion,2 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 offer and thus of a labor certification.3 
II. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner alleges on appeal that the Director "did not apply the proper 
standard of proof in this case, instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applied the law, to 
the detriment of the [Petitioner]." Except where a different standard is specified by law, the 
"preponderance of the evidence" is the standard ofproof governing immigration benefit requests. See 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 375; see also Matter of Martinez, 21 l&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 
1997); Matter of Sao Hoo, 11 l&N Dec. 151, 152 (BIA 1965). Accordingly, the "preponderance of 
the evidence" is the standard of proof governing national interest waiver petitions. See generally 1 
USCIS Policy Manual E.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While the Petitioner asserts on 
appeal that she has provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate her eligibility for the EB-2 
classification and a national interest waiver, she does not successfully explain or identify any specific 
instance in which the Director applied a standard of proof other than the preponderance of evidence 
in denying the petition. 
As stated above, the first step to establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver is demonstrating 
qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or 
an individual of exceptional ability. In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner 
did not meet EB-2 classification eligibility through either avenue. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she has "submitted concrete evidence corroborating that he (sic) 
meets at least 3 of the 6 criteria to demonstrate he (sic) possesses a degree of expertise above that 
ordinarily encountered in his (sic) field -thus establishing him (sic) as an alien of Exceptional Ability, 
as well as confirming that he (sic) qualifies for the requested classification." The Petitioner asserts 
that she has 13 years of experience in the event management industry and requests that we refer to 
TAB 5, her resume, "where she has provided substantial evidence to support the claim that she is an 
individual of exceptional ability." However, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence or 
arguments addressing the concerns of the Director regarding her eligibility for the underlying 
classification. As the Director explained, even meeting 3 of the 6 criteria alone does not establish that 
the Petitioner is recognized as an individual of exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (Objectively meeting the regulatory criteria 
alone does not establish that the beneficiary in fact meets the requirements for exceptional ability 
classification). For example, the Petitioner provided proof that she was a member of the Brazilian 
Association of Events (ABRAFEST A) and two other associations. However, the Director noted, and 
we agree, that while commendable, membership in ABRAFESTA was a qualification possessed by 
most members in her field, and as such, the Petitioner's membership did not demonstrate she has 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 
exceptional ability. The Director did not discuss the Petitioner's other memberships. However, we 
will do so below. 
To meet the criterion for evidence of membership in professional associations, the Petitioner submitted 
evidence of membership from three organizations, namely, ABRAFESTA, Brazilian Woman 
Association, and International Festivals & Events Association (IFEA). See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). For Brazilian Woman Association, she submitted a letter which stated that she 
was "an active member" and was "very participative and . . . making a difference in our city with 
her business and network." The Petitioner did not submit any additional organizational information 
about Brazilian Woman Association. For ABRAFESTA, the Petitioner submitted a webpage print­
out document titled, "The largest entity in the sector of social and corporate events in Brazil" which 
briefly describes that ABRAFESTA was created in 2009 in response to the "difficulties of the events 
market and the lack of arepresentative entity." The Petitioner submitted an affidavit from ABRAFEST 
dated July 20, 2022, stating that the Petitioner was "currently enrolled in our associate list since 
8/1/2022)." It is unclear why the date of the affidavit precedes the Petitioner's enrollment in 
ABRAFESTA For IFEA, the Petitioner submitted awelcome letter from member services addressing 
her by her first name, and information about IFEA's organization overview. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not specifically address the Director's conclusion that her membership 
in ABRAFESTA, and by extension, the other organizations, did not demonstrate that she has 
exceptional ability. However, the Petitioner asserts that she meets at least 3 of the 6 criteria. While 
the documents show the Petitioner's membership to ABRAFESTA, Brazi Iian Woman Association, 
and IFEA, the record does not include evidence showing that they are professional associations as 
contemplated by regulation. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "profession" as any 
occupation having a minimum requirement of a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent for entry 
into the occupation. The record does not show either of the entities requires that its membership body 
be comprised of individuals who have earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent, or 
that the organization otherwise constitutes a professional association. Without more, the Petitioner 
has not established that ABRAFESTA, Brazilian Woman Association, and IFEA, are professional 
associations such that her membership in them would be sufficient to meet this criterion. As such, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated her membership in a professional association under this criterion. 
Consequently, we withdraw the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner met this criterion. Hence, 
the Petitioner has not shown that she meets at least 3 of the 6 criteria necessary to establish that she is 
an individual of extraordinary ability and is therefore ineligible for EB-2 visa classification. 
As explained in the legal framework above, 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. It 
is unnecessary to analyze any remaining independent grounds when another is dispositive of the appeal. 
Therefore, we decline to reach, but hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning the Petitioner's 
eligibility under the Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it 
unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal); 
see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on 
appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that she satisfies the regulatory requirements for the EB-2 
classification as an advanced degree professional or as an individual of exceptional ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5