dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Security

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 13, 2024 In Re: 30634432 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an information security analyst, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-classification nor are they eligible for a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). 
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 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, 1 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
II. ELIGIBILITY FOR EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof, instead 
imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applying the law. She asserts the Director did not give 
"due regard" to the evidence submitted, specifically: the resume outlining her experience; the business 
plan describing her professional credentials, expertise, and accomplishments; evidence of her work in 
the field; letters of recommendation; and industry reports and articles showing the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor and the shortage of professionals with her profile in the field. Upon de novo 
review, we conclude that the Director properly analyzed the evidence to evaluate the Petitioner's 
eligibility by a preponderance of evidence and the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she is eligible 
for EB-2 classification, as addressed below. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
A. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner met only two of the requisite three 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F), and therefore, she did not establish her eligibility for the 
EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. On appeal, the Petitioner does not address 
the Director's conclusion that she did not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability. Therefore, we 
consider this issue waived on appeal. 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, e.g., Matter ofM-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
B. Advanced Degree Professional 
The Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish she is eligible for EB-2 classification 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that 
she holds a "Bachelor's Degree in Technology and Data Processing from 
I land a Master's Degree in MBA from ________ 
The record, however, does not include sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner's degree is 
the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. The credential evaluation of the Petitioner's training, 
education, and experience states that, "[i]n 1994, she completed examinations and was awarded a 
Bachelor's degree in Data Processing. The diploma demonstrates that she completed her four-year 
course of studies at IHowever, this statement is contradicted by the record. 
1 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). 
2 
The record contains a diploma granting the Petitioner, "Titulo de Tecn6logo em Processamento de 
Dados," which translates to, "Title of Technologist in Data Processing." We reviewed the American 
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) Electronic Database for 
Global Education (EDGE). According to EDGE, the diploma represents attainment of a level of 
education comparable to completion of a vocational or other specialized high school curriculum in the 
United States. 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/paraguay for infonnation 
regarding the education system in Paraguay. The record also contains transcripts of her course work 
to earn this title, which shows that she completed her courses from 1992 to 1994, which amounts to 3 
years of school, and does not establish that it is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Therefore, the 
record does not establish that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
The Petitioner also contends that she holds a "Master's Degree in MBA." The record contains a 
"Declaration of Participation" for completing a graduate course for, "Specialist- MBA, in Project 
Management." The credential evaluation states that this is the equivalent of a "advanced degree in 
project management," however, it did not state that this was the equivalent of a master's degree as the 
Petitioner claims. Here, the record does not establish the Petitioner earned the foreign equivalent of a 
bachelor's degree and the record does not establish that the additional course is the U.S. equivalent of 
a master's degree. On appeal, the Petitioner highlights that she has over 25 years of experience in the 
field. While we acknowledge her experience, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) does not provide 
for a substitution of training or experience to be considered as the equivalent of a bachelor's degree; 
both section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act and the regulation contemplate only a single degree, not a 
combination of education and experience claimed as the equivalent, in aggregate, of a degree. 
Credential evaluations are reviewed for advisory purposes only; if questionable in any way, USCIS 
may give them less weight. See Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988). 
Because the credibility of the credential evaluation is in question, we conclude that it holds little 
probative value in this matter. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In summation, the record does not establish the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. See section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. We reserve our opinion regarding 
whether the record satisfies the criteria set forth in the precedent decision Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). See INS 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 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). 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification either 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative, as an individual of 
exceptional ability as that matter has been waived; therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4