dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Industrial And Technical Furniture Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 1, 2024 In Re: 32387864 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of industrial and technical furniture manufacturing, seeks 
employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification 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).1 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, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that he qualifies for the underlying visa classification or merits a discretionary waiver of the 
job offer requirement "in the national interest." 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 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 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 
1 Before the Director, the Petitioner alternatively sought EB-2 immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. In his appeal brief, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's conclusion that he does not 
hold an advanced degree. Accordingly, we deem this issue abandoned. See Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-2731, 2011 WL 
4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise 
them on appeal to the AAO). 
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. 
For the purpose of determining eligibility under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act, "exceptional ability" 
is defined as "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, 
arts, or business." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The regulations further provide six criteria, at least three 
of which must be satisfied, for an individual to establish exceptional ability: 
(A)An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or 
similar award from acollege, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the 
area of exceptional ability; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien 
has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being 
sought; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other renumeration for services, which 
demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) 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).2 
Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification.3 We then consider the totality of the material provided in a final merits determination 
and assess whether the record shows that the petitioner is recognized as having a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.4 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 
(9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if 
fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). 
This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of 
evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of 
the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
2 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual 's occupation , a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish eligibility . 8 C.F. R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
3 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
4 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, supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
2 
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 eligibility for a discretionary 
waiver ofthe 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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 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. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to establish a "comprehensive business venture encompassing consultancy, 
advisory, original equipment manufacturing, training, and sales within the realm of technical, 
industrial, and corporate furniture." In denying the petition, the Director found the Petitioner did not 
hold an advanced degree. The Director further found that the Petitioner did not merit a discretionary 
waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
With respect to the underlying EB-2 classification, the Petitioner submitted evidence seeking to meet 
at least three of the six criteria of evidence for exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The Director did not address whether the Petitioner met any of these criteria. 
However, as discussed below, the record does not support the conclusion that the Petitioner meets at 
least three criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts being an individual of exceptional ability by satisfying four of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), (D), (E) and (F), and that he established by a preponderance 
of the evidence that he qualifies for the national interest waiver. After reviewing the evidence in the 
record, the Petitioner has not demonstrated satisfying at least three of the six initial evidentiary criteria 
and is not otherwise eligible for the requested benefit.5 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the individual has 
at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner claims he has more than ten years of experience as an owner, 
director, and general manager of multiple businesses in Brazil. The Petitioner submitted his resume 
and statements from companies where he was employed. A Human Resources (HR) statement from 
___ states he worked in the position of General and Operations Manager from March 2008 
to August 2016 for 40 hours per week, describes his responsibilities, and states that the Petitioner 
5 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
owned 75% of the shares in the company. The Petitioner also submitted a letter from HR of 
________ stating he worked in the position of General Manager from July 2016 to 
the present for 40 hours per week, describing his responsibilities, and indicating that the Petitioner 
owns 50% of the shares in the company. The record also contains corroborating evidence regarding 
projects the Petitioner worked on at each company, proof of the Petitioner's ownership interests, and 
financial statements relating to his employment. 
Upon de nova review of the record, we agree that the Petitioner meets this criterion. The Petitioner 
demonstrated at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation of his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner supported his statements with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter 
of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
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). 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner claims he has earned income from his business in Brazil which 
is above the average salary for a general manager in Brazil. The Petitioner submitted an income 
statement from an accounting firm relating to income he received from I I The statement 
indicates that, in 2022, the Petitioner earned atotal income of R$131,343.84 annually and R$10,945.32 
monthly. For comparison, the Petitioner's initial letter included evidence from vagas.com.br noting 
that the average salary for Financial Managers in Brazil was R$3,454.00 per month or R$41,448.00 
per year. We note that the position of financial manager is not comparable to the role of general 
manager that the Petitioner has held. On appeal, the Petitioner furnishes a screenshot of the 
Vagas.com.hr website page stating that "in the position of General Manager, you start earning 
R$2,076.00 in salary and can earn up to R$6,353.00. aThe average salary for General Manager in 
Brazil is R$3,454.00." The Petitioner claims this evidence shows his income exceeds the average 
salary for a general manager. 
However, the evidence submitted is not sufficient to show he meets the criterion. The comparison 
evidence is limited to the Petitioner's statements, which includes an extract of the "Vagas.com.br" 
webpage. The webpage image does not indicate whether the general manager average salary is for 
Brazil, a region of Brazil, or some other area, nor does the extract set forth its methodology, including 
the basis for its estimated salary figures. The Petitioner's statements referencing the webpage are not 
sufficient to demonstrate the criterion. The Petitioner must support his statements with independent, 
relevant evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Also, the Petitioner has documented 
that he is a 50% owner of I land the income statement does not indicate whether the Petitioner 
received income for profits and for work. The evidence does not indicate what portion of his income 
is for his work and what portion is for profits. Without more, the Petitioner has not established the 
average salary for a general manager is a proper basis for comparison with the Petitioner's profit and 
work income as a managing partner of his business. 
For these reasons, we find that the Petitioner has not established that he commanded asalary indicative 
of his claimed exceptional ability relative to others working in the field. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
4 
I 
To meet the criterion, the Petitioner submitted evidence of membership from three organizations, 
American Management Association (AMA), the Global Entrepreneurship Institute (GEi), and the 
Project Management Institute (PM 1). For AMA, the Petitioner submitted a document entitled 
"Account Details" with details of an email address, phone number, and a unique identifier 
I The issue date and expiration date on the document are blank. No other details are 
included on the document. To show AMA is a professional association, the Petitioner's letter includes 
a short unattributed excerpt purportedly describing the AMA, but not stating the source of the 
quotation: 
The AMA is an international, non-profit association that provides a wide range of 
educational and management development services to individuals and organizations. 
AMA is dedicated to the education and certification of professionals in the field of 
Management,Entrepreneurship and Business. The lived experiences promote the 
engaged professional with insightful feedbacks that also promote responsibility. 
AMA work develops practical skills that can be immediately applied, thus helping to 
ensure a significant ROI for organizations and the market in which these professionals 
are established. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that AMA is a professional association, "renowned for its dedication 
to education and certification in management, entrepreneurship, and business, providing valuable 
insights and practical skills to professionals worldwide." For the GEi and PMI, the record includes 
evidence of the Petitioner's payment of his membership annual fee in 2023 and descriptions of their 
missions, as well. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "profession" as any occupation having a minimum 
requirement of a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent for entry into the occupation. The record 
does not show that AMA, GEi, or PMI are professional associations as required under the criterion. 
The record does not show these entities require that its membership body be comprised of individuals 
who have earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent, or that the organization 
otherwise constitutes a professional association. Without more, the Petitioner has not established that 
AMA, GEi, and PMI are professional associations such that his membership in them would be 
sufficient to meet this criterion. 
As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his membership in a professional association under this 
criterion. 
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). 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner submitted technical capacity certificates from clients 
demonstrating various purchase orders were fulfilled "in a satisfactory manner, complying with the 
requirements and deadlines ... " The Petitioner details various projects such as customized steel 
furniture and factory workbenches requiring custom technical and industrial specifications. The 
Petitioner submitted letters of support from satisfied clients and collaborating colleagues, A-C, J-C-
5 
Z-, M-M-C-M, N-C-, and I-K-K-. 6 The letters describe how the references met the Petitioner, their 
professional interactions, challenging projects that the Petitioner oversaw successfully, and 
descriptions of complex, technical work. 
The letters of recommendation and of appreciation from his clients and peers attest to the Petitioner 
being a competent, reliable business professional who provided quality service and products. While 
the record shows the Petitioner's business clients and service recipients confirm his management 
experience and knowledge in the products and services for his businesses, it does not demonstrate that 
the Petitioner has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or 
field, as required under the criterion. 
The Petitioner also provided an expert opinion letter from Dr. F-J-Q-, an assistant professor of 
professional practice at I j and adjunct professor at 
I I who reviewed the Petitioner's professional and career goals and provided an "analysis of 
Positional Requirements for the National Interest Exemption." This letter addressed whether the 
Petitioner met the three prongs in Matter of Dhanasar, Id. at 889. The expert opinion letter does claim 
the Petitioner was recognized for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements 
submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron lnt'I, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 
1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other 
information in the record or if it is in anyway questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the 
submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, the expert 
opinion restates large portions of the claims the Petitioner made concerning the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor, but he does not add sufficient analysis or corroborating details to support a 
claim that the Petitioner was recognized for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner summarizes the evidence submitted with the initial petition. The Petitioner 
has not met the requirements for the criterion. 
Because the Petitioner has not established that he meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) through (F), we need not conduct a final merits analysis to determine 
whether the evidence in its totality shows that he is recognized as having a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). 7 Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate and 
conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability. 
6 We use initials to protect the privacy of individuals referenced in this decision. 
7 We acknowledge the Petitioners claim that the Director did not properly advise him of his appeal rights, however the 
Petitioner filed a timely appeal and was not prejudiced by the error. Similarly, we acknowledge that the Director's Notice 
of Intent to Deny erroneously stated that the record included documentation pertaining to the pharmaceutical industry. 
While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established his qualification for the EB-2 classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, and is therefore ineligible for a national interest 
waiver. While the Petitioner asserts on appeal that he meets all three of the prongs under the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, we reserve our opinion regarding these issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting 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 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). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7