dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Hospitality Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 29, 2024 In Re: 33408636 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a hospitality manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 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 the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for the requested EB-2 immigrant classification. The matter is now before us on 
appeal pursuant to 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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. 
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). 1 Meeting 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise and will 
substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United 
States. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,3 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not claim that she is an advanced degree professional, nor does the 
record contain evidence that the Petitioner previously 
earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent.4 Therefore, to qualify for EB-2 immigrant classification, the Petitioner must establish she 
is an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
The Director determined the Petitioner met five of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
However, after evaluating the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits determination, 
the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that she had a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in her field, and therefore was not an individual of 
exceptional ability. On appeal, the Petitioner generally disagrees with the Director's conclusions, and 
claims they applied a "narrow interpretation" of exceptional ability. We disagree. 
Upon de novo review of the record, while we agree with the Director's ultimate conclusion that the 
Petitioner has not established she is an individual of exceptional ability, for the reasons discussed 
below, we disagree that the Petitioner has met three of the six evidentiary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
3 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
4 In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner claimed the Director's acknowledgement of her 
"educational qualifications" established she is an advanced degree professional. This is incorrect. The Director only 
acknowledged that the Petitioner earned an associate of arts degree and related certificates; the record does not indicate 
she has obtained a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree, and therefore she is not an advanced degree 
professional as defined by the regulation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
2 
and withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner met the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D), (E), and (F). 5 
A. The Regulatory Criteria 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other renumeration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). 
After determining that the Petitioner initially met this evidentiary criterion based on her tax returns, 
W-2s, and pay statements in the record, the Director concluded in their final merits determination that, 
because the Petitioner's salary was less than the median pay reported for hospitality managers in the 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, the Petitioner had not established her salary was indicative of 
exceptional ability. We agree. Here, because the plain language of the criterion requires the Petitioner 
to establish her salary or remuneration demonstrates exceptional ability, we withdraw the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner met this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that her salary is "below the median" salary for hospitality 
managers, but contends that this does "not negate the fact that she has been recognized by her peers" 
and otherwise has obtained membership in respected organizations in the industry. Yet, the regulatory 
criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that her salary or remuneration is demonstrative of 
exceptional ability relative to others working in her field. 6 Her recognition by others in the field and 
her membership in associations are not relevant to that inquiry. The record does not explain how the 
Petitioner's salary, which is below the median salary of others in the field, is demonstrative of 
exceptional ability. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she has commanded a salary 
indicative of exceptional ability in satisfaction of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) and we withdraw the 
Director's determination. 
Evidence ofmembership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
The Director determined the Petitioner met this criterion due to her membership in the Meeting 
Professionals International (MPI) Foundation, Central Florida Hotel & Lodging Association 
(CFHLC), and American Hotel & Lodging Education Institute (AHLEI). We disagree. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines a "profession" as an occupation listed at section 
10l(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(32), 7 or an occupation whose minimum requirement for entry 
is a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent. While the Petitioner provided documentation 
outlining the nature of these organizations, the record does not indicate that any of these organizations 
require their members to have attained at least a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent as 
a minimum requirement for membership. Rather the summaries provided in the record indicate that 
5 The Petitioner does not assert error in the Director's determination regarding the criterion 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C), 
nor does she claim to meet this criterion on appeal. We therefore consider the issue of eligibility under that criterion to be 
waived. See Matter ofR-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). 
6 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.5(B)(2). 
7 The occupations listed in this section are architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementmy 
or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries. 
3 
the associations are industry associations aimed at offering its members training and educational 
opportunities and promoting the meetings, events and hospitality fields. And while the associations 
reference "professionals" among their members, the Petitioner has not shown that these associations 
limit their members to individuals who meet the regulatory definition of "profession." As such, we 
cannot conclude that the Petitioner meets this criterion, and we withdraw the Director's determination 
to the contrary. 
Evidence ofrecognition 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). 
In their decision, the Director concluded, without discussion, that the Petitioner provided letters of 
support establishing that she met this criterion. We disagree. 
The plain language of this criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that she has received recognition 
for "achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field." The record contains 
numerous letters from the Petitioner's former employers, colleagues, and peers praising her skills and 
abilities, along with evidence of various awards and recognition she received from her prior employers. 
But the evidence does not identify significant contributions she has made to the industry or field. For 
example, in the letter from the superintendent ofI I the writer explains that during a I I 
I I event, the Petitioner successfully "devised a strategy to increase tourist traffic in hotels across 
the state ofl Inoting that the Petitioner had a "highly positive impact" on the hotels for 
which she was responsible as commercial manager. Additionally, they commended the Petitioner's 
ability to simultaneously manage the reservations of 21 hotels, which involved overseeing 2,000 hotel 
rooms and required the Petitioner's "exceptional organizational and logistical skills." While they 
stated that this accomplishment resulted in success not only for the companies, "but also ma[de] a 
notable impact on the industry as a whole," they do not identify the impact to the industry, beyond the 
benefits to the hotels under the Petitioner's management. Rather, the letter establishes the Petitioner 
was successful in her prior roles, and was entrusted with large-scale assignments. 
The remaining letters also praise the Petitioner's professionalism and discuss her execution of large­
scale events, including her role in organizing the logistics ofl I a large corporate event attended 
by entrepreneurs and diplomats from several countries aimed at improving sustainability practices, as 
well as smaller scale meetings, and workshops through her company S-E-. These letters commend 
her ability to "deal with problems and adapt to changes," and "work under pressure." However, like 
the letter discussed above, they do not explain how the Petitioner has made significant contributions 
to her field. 
And, while the Petitioner submitted evidence of awards she received during her employment, as well 
as numerous online reviews from hotel guests mentioning her by name, and praising her customer 
service, these do not indicate significant contributions to the field more widely. Likewise, the 
Petitioner submitted an article referencing her company's involvement in coordinating thel I 
event, but the article only notes that the Petitioner's company was responsible for coordinating the 
event and does not identify ways in which the Petitioner's work resulted in significant contributions 
to her field. For the reasons discussed, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner meets this criterion, and 
we withdraw the Director's determination. 
4 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Even though the Petitioner has not established that she meets three of the six evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, and conclude that the record 
does not establish that the Petitioner possesses a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in her field. 
Specifically, we acknowledge that the evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner has education, 
training, and a successful career in the hospitality field, as well as memberships in associations 
promoting the hospitality field. But the record as a whole does not establish she possesses expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. We agree with the Director's conclusion 
that the Petitioner's credentials and qualifications are not above what would normally be expected in 
her field. On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges the Director's determination that the Petitioner's 
qualifications are possessed by most members in her field, but claims that they are nonetheless evidence 
of her exceptional ability. Notably, the Petitioner does not explain why these credentials establish her 
exceptional ability. And the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in concluding the letters from her 
former colleagues and others in the field do not establish she has expertise significantly above others in 
her field. But, as discussed, the letters are not persuasive in establishing her contributions to the field. 
And we also agree that the letters, while complimentary to her skillset and career, do not establish she has 
a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. 
The record does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability as it 
does not demonstrate that she meets three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) or 
that she has obtained a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 8 
C. National Interest Waiver 
The Petitioner has not established that she is eligible for the EB-2 classification. Since this issue is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the remaining issues, 
including whether she is eligible for a national interest waiver. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 
25 ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 
unnecessary to the results they reached"); 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 demonstrated that she qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability under 
section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.5(B)(2). 
5