dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
In Re: 24993523 Date : MAY 25, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human resources professional, seeks classification as an advanced degree 
professional. 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 attached to this EB-2 
immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
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, under 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). 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 
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). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. See generally , 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2) , https://www.uscis .gov/policy-manual. 
We will then conduct a final merits determination to determine 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 for the underlying classification, 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 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 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. 
As an initial matter, we must withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner is an advanced 
degree professional. As confirmed by the provided evaluation, the Petitioner's Brazilian bachelor's 
degree is the equivalent "of three and one half years of [b]achelor's-level studies at an accredited 
institution of higher learning in the United States." The evaluator concludes that the combination of 
the Petitioner's bachelor's degree and lato sensu diploma is "the equivalent of a [b]achelor' s degree 
in [b]usiness [ a ]dministration." 
Information from the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers 
(AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) supports the evaluation, stating that: 4 
The 3-year Titulo de Bacharel/Grau de Bacharel represents attainment of a level of education 
comparable to 3 years of university study in the United States. Credit may be awarded on a 
course-by-course basis. The 4- or 5-year Titulo de Bacharel/Grau de Bacharel represents 
attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States. 
EDGE also indicates that: 
Professional development and specialization programs are considered lato sensus/ wide sense 
graduate level programs and follow independent legislation. Such programs lead toward 
professional certificates, not graduate degrees. They require 1 to 2 or 3 years of study. 
3 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
4 We consider EDGE to be a reliable source of information about foreign credential equivalencies. See Confluence Intern., 
Inc. v. Holder, Civil No. 08-2665 (DSD-JJG), 2009 WL 825793 (D. Minn. Mar. 27, 2009); Tisco Group, Inc. v. Napolitano, 
No. 09-cv-10072, 2010 WL 3464314 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2010); Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. No. 09-13605, 2010 WL 
3325442 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2010). See also Viraj, LLC v. Holder, No. 2: 12-CV-00127-RWS, 2013 WL 1943431 (N.D. 
Ga. May 18, 2013). See https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/brazil for information regarding the education system in 
Brazil and credential equivalencies (last accessed May 25, 2023). 
2 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner holds the "equivalent of a [b]achelor's degree," rather than a 
"foreign equivalent degree" as required by 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(2). 5 We cannot conclude that she 
qualifies as an advanced degree professional with anything less than a "United States bachelor's degree 
or foreign equivalent." In addition, as the Petitioner does not claim (and the record does not establish) 
that she is an individual of exceptional ability, she has not demonstrated eligibility for the underlying 
classification. 
Regarding the Petitioner's assertions related to the national importance of her proposed endeavor, we 
adopt and affirm the Director's decision on this issue with the comments below. 6 See Matter of 
Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 
1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally 
accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st 
Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of Appeals in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and 
affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
While we agree with the Director's analysis and conclusions regarding the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor, we note the following. Because the Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of 
filing, her claims related to the human resources group she started after the filing of her petition cannot 
be considered. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). We 
are also not persuaded by the Petitioner's arguments that the proposed endeavor has national 
importance due to the shortage of human resources professionals. The Petitioner has not established 
that her proposed endeavor would impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage. 
Notably, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor 
through the labor certification process. 
Further, because the identified bases for denial are dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's remaining appellate arguments. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 Compare 8 C.F .R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(D) ( defining for purposes of a non immigrant visa classification, the "equivalence to 
completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree.") Where combinations of education or experience may 
equate to baccalaureate degrees, the Act and regulations state so explicitly. See section 214(i)(2)(C) of the Act 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 84(i)(2)(C) (allowing H-IB workers to have "experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such 
[bachelor's] degree"); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) (stating H-IB workers may have "education, specialized 
training, and/or progressively responsible experience that is equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate ... 
degree"). The regulations pertaining to the immigrant classification sought in this matter do not contain similar language. 
6 Although the Director incorrectly stated that the Petitioner's field is dentistry in the first paragraph of their discussion of 
national importance, it is clear that this was a typographical error and did not impact their conclusion. 
3