dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 26009390 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 18, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the 
sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(2). 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record does not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability or that a 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be 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 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 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. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act; see also 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3) . To qualify as an individual of exceptional ability, the Form 1-140, Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Workers, must be accompanied by at least three of the six criteria provided at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
The Director concluded that the record contains sufficient evidence to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), but did not establish that she satisfies any of the remaining criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) - (F). On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that she satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), (C), (E), and (F).1 
1 As the Petitioner does not claim that she meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(k)(3)(ii)(D), we will not address it. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
The Director discussed the deficiencies in the submitted employment verification letters in the request 
for evidence (RFE) and decision. 2 Rather than provide new evidence which included the missing 
information required by the plain language of the regulation, 3 the Petitioner, through counsel, again 
summarizes her prior experience. Without more, we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
The Petitioner did not claim to have met this criterion in the initial filing. On appeal, the Petitioner 
repeats her response to the Director's RFE verbatim. She asserts that because "the licensing 
requirement is not applicable to the Beneficiary's field of endeavor," the Director should consider 
"comparable evidence submitted herewith to establish that the Beneficiary possesses a degree of 
expertise that is significantly above that ordinarily encountered." However, for comparable evidence 
to be considered, a petitioner must explain why a particular evidentiary criterion listed in the regulations 
is not readily applicable to his or her occupation and establish that the submitted evidence is "comparable" 
to that criterion. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). The Petitioner has not done so here. Not only has she not 
identified which evidence we should consider under this criterion, but she has not explained how it is 
comparable to "a license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation." 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
The Petitioner relies on her membership in the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) to satisfy this 
criterion. She did not, however, provide supporting evidence, such as the membership requirements 
and/or by-laws, which establishes that SPJ is a professional association. Profession is defined as "one 
of the occupations listed in section 10 l (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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Without evidence that SPJ requires its members to hold a 
bachelor's degree (or the foreign equivalent), the Petitioner has not established that she meets this 
criterion. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that she meets one additional criterion relating to achievements and 
significant contributions at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), we need not reach a decision on this additional 
ground because she cannot meet the required three criteria. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial 
evidentiary requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), we reserve the remaining issues. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally 
required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-
2 The Petitioner did not address this criterion in the RFE response. 
3 See also 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(l) which provides that evidence relating to qualifying experience or training shall be in the 
form ofletters from current or f01mer employers or trainers and shall include a specific description of the duties performed 
by the individual or of the training received. 
2 
A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, n. 7 ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
As the Petitioner has not met the reqms1te second-preference classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise 
merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3