dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22723185 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 04, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial manager, seeks second preference immigrant classification as either an 
advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 
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). After a 
petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner 
demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) that the foreign national 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center determined the evidence of record did not establish that the 
Petitioner qualifies for the underlying classification, nor did the Petitioner establish eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner reasserts his eligibility, arguing that the Director 
did not consider the evidence under the proper standard of review and erred in the decision. In these 
proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 10l{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). 
2 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent 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). In announcing this new framework, we vacated 
our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 
215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest 
waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th 
Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in 
nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted if the petitioner 
demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) that the foreign national 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. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three 
prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or that he is an individual of exceptional ability. The Director 
also determined that the Petitioner had not established: (1) the proposed endeavor has national 
importance; (2) the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor; or (3) that a waiver of 
the job offer and labor certification requirements would be in the national interest. The Director's decision 
then discussed the deficiencies in the submitted evidence and provided a well-reasoned explanation as to 
why the evidence was insufficient to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Therefore, upon consideration of the entire record, including the arguments made on appeal, we adopt 
and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 26 
l&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and 
evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved 
by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided 
the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). While we may not discuss every 
document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
A. Advanced Degree 
We agree with the Director that, although the Petitioner presented evidence that he earned the foreign 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in administration, the employment letters he provided do not 
sufficiently establish at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience. To the 
explanation the Director provided, we add that the employment letters indicate the Petitioner held the 
same position with the same employer.I I for approximately ten 
years.1 Although the Petitioner may have worked on different projects for different clients during this 
1 The employment letters state that the Petitioner worked fo ______ The Petitioner stated in his resume 
that he worked tori I He has not offered an explanation as to whether 
I I and I lare the same entity or if they differ, how they differ. __ 
3 
time, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's experience was progressive in nature, 
particularly as he remained in the same position throughout the duration of his employment with 
I I Moreover, the Petitioner indicates that he will continue his career as a financial manager; 
however, the record is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner has ever worked as a financial 
manager. Based on the evidence provided, we question whether the Petitioner's experience relates 
more to performing clerical or bookkeeping tasks as an office administrator than to financial 
management. 
B. Exceptional Abi I ity 
The Director provided analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability and 
determined that the Petitioner established eligibility under at least three of the six categories listed at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Specifically, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had satisfied the 
evidentiary requirements under: (1) 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), for an official academic record 
relating to the area of exceptional ability; (2) 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C), for a license to practice the 
profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation; and (3) 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E), for evidence of membership in professional associations. Although the Director's 
decision reflected that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of the six criteria, in a final merits analysis, 
the Director found that the Petitioner had not established that he qualifies as an individual of exceptional 
ability. While we similarly conclude the Petitioner has not established that he qualifies as an individual 
of exceptional ability, we reach this conclusion based on different reasoning than that upon which the 
Director relied. 
While we recognize that the Petitioner has an official academic record, we cannot conclude his course 
of study as an administrator sufficiently relates to the area of claimed exceptional ability as a financial 
manager. The Petitioner has not offered sufficient documentation concerning how his education as an 
administrator is related or comparable to an education in financial management. Therefore, we 
conclude that the evidence does not support a finding of eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), 
regarding an official academic record related to the area of claimed exceptional ability. 
The Director already determined that the Petitioner's employment letters did not sufficiently establish 
ten years of full-time experience in the area of claimed exceptional ability, as required under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). However, the Director did not specifically acknowledge that in response to the 
request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a new letter from I lwhich stated that the 
Petitioner "was a full-time employee of this company from September 1st., 2005 to April 13th., 2015, 
performing administrative work in the position of administrator" (all-capitals emphasis removed).2 
Like the Director, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that he has ten years 
of full-time experience in the area of claimed exceptional ability. However, to the Director's 
reasoning, we add that the Petitioner has not offered sufficient independent and objective evidence 
that he has work experience as a financial manager, as opposed to experience as an office administrator 
performing administrative work. 
2 Thel I employer letter submitted with the initial filing stated that the Petitioner worked as a "manager" during 
this same time period. The letter did not provide any of the Petitioner's duties. The Petitioner did not explain why the 
same employer stated that the Petitioner worked as a "manager" in the first letter and in a subsequent letter stated that he 
worked as an administrator performing administrative work. 
4 
To the Director's analysis that the Petitioner had not demonstrated eligibility under the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D), related to remuneration for services demonstrating exceptional ability, 
we add that the Petitioner provided salary data from a Brazilian website without providing an English 
translation of it, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). From the document, we ascertain that the salary 
data relates to a one-year period from 2017 to 2018. However, the evidence the Petitioner provided 
to establish his salary, such as tax documents, relates to years 2012 to 2015. Therefore, even if the 
Petitioner had provided an English translation of the salary website, the data would not correlate to 
the years for which the Petitioner offered evidence of his salary. For these additional reasons, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). 
The Director found the Petitioner's evidence of a professional identity card and registration certificate 
from the Regional Council of Administration (council) satisfied two criteria, that of evidence of a license 
or certification in the profession and of a membership in a professional association. However, we 
conclude that this evidence is insufficient to establish eligibility under these criteria. First, the 
professional identity card and registration certificate state that they are valid until May 2020 and March 
2019, respectively. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that the identity card and registration remained 
valid through the adjudication of the petition. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of 
filing for the requested benefit and must continue to be eligible for the benefit through the adjudication 
of it. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). Similarly, we conclude that for the identity card and registration to serve 
as evidence of eligibility under these criteria, they must have been valid at the time of filing and 
continue to remain valid through the adjudication of the petition. Second, as explained previously, 
these documents relate to the occupation of administrator, which the Petitioner has not established is 
related to the occupation of financial manager. 
The identity card itself does not indicate what qualified the Petitioner to obtain such a card, nor does it 
indicate what the card confers upon him. By itself, the identity card does not support a finding that it is a 
license to practice the profession, but rather, merely identifies the Petitioner as an administrator. Notably, 
the Petitioner registered with the council in May 2018, which indicates that he received his professional 
identity card after ending his employment with I in 2015. Based on the information provided, 
the Petitioner appears to have worked approximately ten years as an administrator without a professional 
identity card, which suggests that such a card is not required to practice his profession and cannot be 
considered a license or certification. 
The accompanying registration document states that the Petitioner is up-to-date with his financial 
obligations to the council, has no disciplinary actions against him, and may exercise the occupation. 
However, similar to the professional identity card, the council issued the Petitioner this document in 
September 2018, which suggests that the Petitioner performed in his profession for approximately ten 
years without having registered with the council. As such, we cannot conclude that the registration 
certificate is a license or certification to practice the profession. 
The Petitioner also provided his registration with the council as evidence of his membership in a 
professional association. However, as the Director already noted in the decision, the Petitioner did not 
provide independent and objective evidence to establish the relevance and significance of the registration 
document. Here, it appears that the Petitioner received the document after meeting his financial 
obligations and after a determination that he had not violated any ethics or received any disciplinary 
action. It cannot be concluded from the evidence provided that the registration document is evidence of 
5 
membership in a professional assocIatIon, as the record does not demonstrate what professional 
qualifications, if any, the council considered for issuance of the document. Accordingly, we conclude 
that the Petitioner has not established that he satisfies this criterion. 
Because we conclude that the evidence does not support a finding that the Petitioner met at least three 
of the six evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), we need not reach a final merits 
determination. Nevertheless, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the record does not establish 
the Petitioner's experience is beyond that which is ordinarily encountered in the profession. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further 
analysis of his eligibility under the framework outlined in Dhanasar would serve no useful purpose. 
However, we nevertheless agree with the Director's analysis of his eligibility under the Dhanasar 
framework. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates the same eligibility claims that he had previously 
submitted to the Director without meaningfully addressing the evidentiary deficiencies the Director 
identified. Additionally, on appeal, the Petitioner offers no new evidence to support his claims of 
eligibility. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not overcome the reasons for the Director's 
denial. 
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning his eligibility under the Dhanasar 
framework. See I NS 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 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). 
As the Petitioner has not met the requirements for the underlying EB-2 classification, we conclude 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6