dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24833842 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 7, 2023 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree and 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the classification sought or for the national interest waiver. 
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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537 , 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
The record does not identify the Petitioner's intended occupation. Initially, the Petitioner stated that 
she seeks employment as an "entrepreneur" in the field of "finance." "Finance" is a broad field that 
encompasses many different occupations. In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted that 
"the petitioner did not provide a nontechnical job description of her proposed endeavor. " Although 
the Petitioner responded to the RFE, her response did not address this issue. 
When the Director denied the petition, the Director identified several deficiencies as grounds for 
denial. The Petitioner's appeal consists of a statement in which the Petitioner repeats her RFE 
response, almost verbatim, adding the phrase "USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] 
erred in finding otherwise" to several paragraphs. The appeal statement also includes additional 
information relating to her claim of eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
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. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). "Profession" is defined as of the occupations listed in section 
101(a)(32)oftheAct, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32),aswellas anyoccupationforwhicha United States 
baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the 
occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 2 Meeting at least 
three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 3 We then 
conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are 
recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary 
waiver of the job off er requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016 ), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 4 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) the individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed 
endeavor; and, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. EXCEPTIONAL ABILITY 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth six criteria, at least three of which an alien must 
meet in order to qualify as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, the arts, or business. When 
she filed the petition in November 2019, the Petitioner claimed eligibility as an individual of 
exceptional ability, but she did not explain which of the six regulatory criteria she claimed to satisfy. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the petitioner claimed to have satisfied three of the criteria: 
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, 
or similar awardfrom a college, university, school, or other institution of learning 
relating to the area of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
1 The listed occupations are architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary orsecondaty 
schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. 
2 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish theireligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
3 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context ofindividuals of 
exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-
part-f-chapter-5. 
4 Sec also Poursina v. USCJS, 936F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
The translation of a diploma from I university states that the Petitioner "accomplished the 
full academic course of the University, specializing in- [sic] Commodity science and organization of 
trading with nonfoods." The translator signed the translation, stating: "This translation correspponds 
to original." This statement does not meet the regulatory requirements. Any document containing 
foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation 
which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he 
or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
In the RFE, the Director asked the Petitioner for a properly certified translation of the diploma, and 
further information about the degree and the underlying course work. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted another copy of the translation of the diploma, with a certification 
by a different translator. This second translator stated: "I have made WRITTEN translation of the 
attached document" ( emphasis in original), but the accompanying English translation appears to be a 
photocopy of the first version. The two translations are identical in content and appearance, with the 
same superfluous hyphen between the words "in" and "Commodity." Thus, two different translators 
claim not only to have translated the same document, but to have prepared the same translation. 
In the denial notice, the Director concluded that the evidence is deficient because the Petitioner had 
not shown that the diploma relates to the area of claimed exceptional ability. Specifically, the 
Petitioner had not explained how a diploma in "Commodity science and organization of trading with 
nonfoods" pertains to the field of "finance." We will not speculate as to how the degree might relate 
to the field of finance, because it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred, but she does not explain how her degree relates 
to her field. The Petitioner has neither addressed nor overcome the Director's conclusions. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the 
alien has at least ten years offul!-time experience in the occupation for which he or 
she is being sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
The Petitioner submitted letters attesting to her employment as an appraiser in the Republic of Georgia, 
first at a bank inl I from 1998 to 2017, and then for a micro finance organization inl from 
2017 to 2019. The letters did not specify whether the Petitioner's employment was full-time. 
Evidence relating to qualifying experience shall be in the form of letters from current or former 
employers and shall include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the 
duties performed by the individual or of the training received. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(l). The submitted 
letters do not fully meet these requirements, because the letters do not include specific descriptions of 
the Petitioner's duties. 
In the RFE, the Director observed that the employers' letters were deficient, because they did not 
specify the Petitioner's duties and show that the employment was full-time. In response, the Petitioner 
resubmitted copies of the same letters. 
3 
The Director denied the petition, stating that, upon being advised of the deficiencies in her initial 
evidence, the Petitioner "submitted the same evidence." On appeal, the Petitioner summarizes her 
claimed employment history, but she does not address or overcome the deficiencies that the Director 
identified in the employers' letters. 
We agree with the Director that the letters do not meet the minimum evidentiary requirements of 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l) and (k)(3)(ii)(B). As a result, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient 
evidence of past employment. Furthermore, because the Petitioner has not specified the occupation 
in which she intends to work in the United States, she has not shown that the letters establish 
experience in the occupation she seeks to pursue. 
Evidence of recognition.for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) 
The Petitioner did not initially claim to have satisfied this criterion. In the RFE, the Director suggested 
various types of evidence that might show recognition for the Petitioner's achievements and significant 
contributions. In response, the Petitioner claimed that her evidence "clearly established that this 
criterion has been met," but she did not specifically identify what evidence addressed the criterion or 
how it did so. 
We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not identify any record evidence 
relevant to this criterion, or explain how she satisfies the criterion. The Petitioner repeats, on appeal, 
that she has satisfied it, but does not say how. The burden of proof is on the Petitioner, and she cannot 
meet that burden simply by asserting that she has met it. 
The Petitioner's evidence does not satisfy at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
Therefore, she has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
III. ADV AN CED DEGREE PROFESSIONAL 
The Petitioner did not initially claim to qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. In the RFE, the Director stated that, if the Petitioner seeks this classification, she must submit 
further documentation to show that she possesses either ( 1) an advanced degree or (2) a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree or equivalent foreign degree followed by at least five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty in which the Petitioner seeks employment. The Director acknowledged the 
Petitioner's previous submission of a diploma from the University ofl I but the Director noted 
that the Petitioner had not submitted "transcripts or an evaluation of credentials" to establish that the 
degree was equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate or advanced degree. 
As noted above, the Petitioner resubmitted copies of the diploma and the same translation in response 
to the RFE, but she did not provide any further evidence or information to establish equivalence to a 
baccalaureate or higher degree from a U.S. institution. 
The Director concluded that the diploma and employers' letters, as submitted, were deficient. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she "clearly established that she is advanced degree professional 
4 
[sic]," but she does not address or overcome the deficiencies identified by the Director. The record 
does not contain the minimum evidence required to establish eligibility for the classification sought. 
Beyond the above determinations, we add that, because the Petitioner has not identified the specific 
occupation in which she intends to work, she has not established that she qualifies as a member of the 
professions. Qualification as a professional depends on the requirements for the position, not the 
educational background of the individual. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
IV. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification under section 203(b )(2) of the Act, 
either as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, or as an individual of exceptional 
ability. Because this issue detennines the outcome of the Petitioner's appeal, we reserve the appellate 
arguments regarding the national interest waiver. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary 
to the results they reach"); 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 is otherwise ineligible). 
N eve1iheless, we agree with the Director's observation in the RFE that the Petitioner has not described 
a specific proposed endeavor. On the petition form, the Petitioner described herself as an 
"entrepreneur," but she claimed no past experience establishing or operating her own business. Her 
past experience was as an appraiser for financial institutions. The Petitioner did not specify what type 
of business she intends to establish in the United States, or how her proposed endeavor meets the 
requirements set f 01ih in the Dhanasar framework. 
The initial submission includes a statement, signed by the Petitioner, indicating that her education and 
experience have given her "transferrable skills, such as: analytical skills, mathematical abilities, 
customer service experience, communication with people of all backgrounds, [and] leadership 
expertise," which she plans to use in "the field of finance." The Petitioner, however, provided no 
further details about what she plans to do in that field, even after the Director specifically asked for 
that information. 
The Petitioner's initial statement also indicated that "the architectural industry is experiencing a vast 
shortage of qualified workers." The Petitioner claims no credentials or qualifications as an architect, 
and therefore this reference to "the architectural industry" raises questions about the true authorship 
of her statement. 
V. CONCLUSION 
We will dismiss the appeal, because the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for classification 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5