dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 9, 2023 In Re: 27493401 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a financial manager , seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences , arts or business. See 
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 . See 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 qualifies for either EB-2 classification or 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 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 qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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). 
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). Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 1 
We will 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 EB-2 eligibility, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary 
waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
While neither the statute nor the pe1tinent 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,2 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner studied at._____________ ~---~----__.Brazil, from 2006 
to 2010. Letters in the record indicate she worked in Brazil as a financial manager for I I I lfrom July 2007 to January 2011; f01J Ifrom April 2011 to August 
2014; and forl Ifrom August 2014 to July 2017. The Petitioner entered the United 
States as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor in July 201 7. Since that time, she has remained in the United 
States, either as a B-2 visitor or as an F-1 student. She is the financial manager of a Florida company 
established by her spouse in 2019. She intends "to open a Financial Management Consultancy Office 
with a focus on ... Financial Institutions and [the] Steel Industry." 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Petitioner does not claim to have earned an advanced degree. She claims, instead, that her 
"academic background and 10 years of professional financial experience ... are equivalent to a 
bachelor's degree from an accredited US higher education institution." The Petitioner submitted a 
translated academic transcript from I I The transcript indicates that the Petitioner studied 
"Administration" for eight semesters from 2006 to 2010, but it also shows a "Course Completion" 
date in June 2021 and a "Graduation" date in July 2021. 
A translated graduation certificate from al Iofficial reads, in part: "[In] the official book has 
been recorded, on July 19, 2021, the Graduation of [ the Petitioner] ... in the Bachelor's Degree in 
Administration in order to register her school accomplishments, has successfully completed in the 
2021 academic year, the Administration Course, in this University." A credential evaluation calls the 
degree "the equivalent of a U.S. Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration," which the Petitioner 
"successfully completed ... on July 19, 2021." 
1 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F .3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
While the transcript shows classes from 2006 to 2010, the university documents consistently indicate 
that the Petitioner completed and received her degree in July 2021, just three months before she filed 
the petition. The documents do not explain the 11-year gap between the coursework and the 
completion and awarding of the degree. 
The Petitioner also submitted a translated certificate indicating that she completed a "Tax Analyst" 
course in 2013. The 2013 course consisted of 30 hours of instruction over six weeks, substantially 
less than the four years typically required for a baccalaureate degree, and the Petitioner did not submit 
any evidence to indicate that the "Tax Analyst" course certificate is equivalent to at least a 
baccalaureate degree. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted the unexplained "11 year gap between the course 
details and course completion," and stated that the Petitioner would need to submit additional evidence 
to establish that she held an advanced degree, or its defined equivalent, at the time she filed the petition. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted copies of the same documents submitted previously. 
She did not explain the delay in receiving her degree. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner had not explained the 11-year gap between 
her studies atl land her receipt of the degree. 
On appeal, the Petitioner quotes the Director's comments about the "11-year gap" in her academic 
documents, and affirms that "she earned [her bachelor's degree] in June 2021," but the Petitioner does 
not explain the gap or acknowledge the consequences arising from those facts. The Petitioner 
maintains that she has "ten years ... of experience," but the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
specifies that qualifying experience must "follow" receipt of a bachelor's degree. A petitioner must 
meet all eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The 
Petitioner received her bachelor's degree only a few months before she filed the petition in October 
2021. In the absence of clarifying information, corroborated by first-hand documentary evidence, the 
Petitioner has not shown that she accumulated at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate 
employment experience before the filing date. 
The Petitioner has not met her burden of proof to establish that, at the time of filing, she qualified as 
a member of the professions holding either an advanced degree or its defined equivalent. 
B. Exceptional Ability in Business 
The Petitioner initially claimed exceptional ability in business, but the Director dete1mined that the 
Petitioner had not met her burden of proof to establish eligibility for that classification. On appeal, 
the Petitioner acknowledges that the Director "determined that the Appellant does not qualify as a 
professional [sic] of Exceptional Ability," but the Petitioner does not further address the issue or allege 
any specific error in the Director's decision. A petitioner must identify specifically any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1 )(v). Therefore, 
the Petitioner has waived appeal on the issue of exceptional ability. See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N 
Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue addressed in an 
adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 
3 
2 (11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov 
v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011)(holding that 
plaintiff's claims were abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO); Greenbriar, Ltd. 
v. City ofAlabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989) (stating that passing references to issues 
are insufficient to raise a claim for appeal, and such issues are deemed abandoned). 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met her burden of proof to show that she 
qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification, either as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. This determination is sufficient to 
dete1mine the outcome of the appeal. Therefore, we reserve argument on the separate issue of 
eligibility for the national interest waiver. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating 
that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required to make findings and decisions 
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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification, which is a 
necessary qualification for the national interest waiver. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4