dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Language Specialist

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 10, 2025 In Re: 35321437 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a language specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as amember of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as anational interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Section 203(b)(2) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, finding the Petitioner had not established 
her eligibility for the underlying 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 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. 
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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&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 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a language specialist, claimed that she qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa 
classification as an advanced degree professional. The Director issued a Request for Evidence (RFE), 
explaining the record did not support that the Petitioner was an advanced degree professional and 
because she did not claim eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, USCIS would not review 
her eligibility for EB-2 classification under this alternate ground. The Director reviewed the 
Petitioner's response to the RFE and denied the national interest waiver petition because the Petitioner 
had not established that she was an advanced degree professional and, as a result, her eligibility for 
the EB-2 classification, which was dispositive of her petition. Therefore, the Director did not analyze 
the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement under the 
Dhanasar framework. Based on our de nova review of the record, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner has not established her eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not claim that she is an individual of exceptional ability or that the 
Director erred in not analyzing this alternative basis of establishing her eligibility for the EB-2 visa 
classification. Any ground of ineligibility that is not raised on appeal is waived. See Matter of O-R­
E-, 28 l&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter of R-A-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 
2012)). 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in determining she is ineligible for the underlying EB-2 
classification as an advanced degree professional. An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or 
professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). 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. Id. A U.S. bachelor's 
degree generally requires four years of education. Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1977). 
The Petitioner provided education documents evidencing she earned a "titulo de licenciado(a)," in 
English and Portuguese in Brazil in August 2006. She submitted a transcript evidencing she took 
classes for half of 2003 continuing through 2006. She also provided a "certificado a pela conclusao 
do curso de pos-graduacao" in advanced English awarded in 2008. According to the associated 
transcript, she took classes in 2006 and one class in 2007. The Petitioner also submitted an evaluation 
of academic credentials dated May 2024 which stated the Petitioner's titulo de licenciado is equivalent 
to a bachelor of education degree in English and Portuguese. 
Information from the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers 
(AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) provides: 
The 2- to 3-year Tftulo de Licenciado (Licenciatura) represents attainment of a level of 
education comparable to 2 to 3 years of university study in the United States. Credit may be 
awarded on a course-by-course basis. The 4-year Tftulo de Licenciado (Licenciatura) 
2 
represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United 
States.2 
EDGE further provides that the: 
Certificado de Conclusao de Curso Sequencial represents attainment of a level of education 
comparable to university study in the United States. Credit may be awarded on a course-by­
course basis.3 
The Director determined that according to EDGE, the Petitioner's titulo de licenciado is a teaching 
qualification awarded after two to four years of academic study. The Director further determined that 
the Petitioner's academic record evidenced her titulo de licenciado is a three-year credential and not 
equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, which generally requires four years of education. While the 
Director acknowledged the Petitioner's May 2024 academic evaluation, which determined that the 
Petitioner's titulo de licenciado is a foreign bachelor's degree equivalent, the Director explained the 
academic evaluation was not supported by the record. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that USCIS failed to provide specific evidence refuting this evaluation 
and arbitrarily relied on a database that offers generalized assessments rather than the tailored, case­
specific analysis presented by the credential evaluation service. However, EDGE is a web-based 
resource for the evaluation of foreign educational credentials created by AACRAO. AACRAO is a 
professional association of higher education admissions and registration professionals who represent 
academic institutions located in over 40 countries. 4 We consider EDGE to be a reliable source of 
information about foreign credential equivalencies.5 We therefore do not agree that the Director's 
reliance on this resource was arbitrary. Further credential evaluations are only advisory. If 
questionable in any way, USCIS may give them less weight. See Matter of Sea, 19 l&N Dec. 817 
(Comm'r 1988); Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). Here, the evaluator does 
not provide, as Petitioner claims, a tailored, case specific analysis of how the Petitioner's academic 
record, evidencing her completion of a three-year program, amounts to the foreign equivalent of a 
four-year U.S. bachelor's degree. See Matter of Shah, 17 l&N Dec. 244. Rather, the evaluator 
summarily stated her course work, credits earned, and years of study earned her a foreign degree 
equivalent to a bachelor's degree. We therefore agree with the Director that the Petitioner's academic 
evaluation is not supported by the record to demonstrate the Petitioner has a four-year foreign degree 
equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
The Petitioner further asserts that the evaluation considered the Petitioner's academic records 
comprehensively, including her subsequent certificado de conclusao de curso in advanced English, to 
2 AACRAO, Titulo de Licenciado {Licentiate), https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/credentials/credential/brazil/tftulo­
de-licenciado-(licentiate) (last visited January 10, 2025, and incorporated into the record). 
3 AACRAO, Certificado de Conclusao de Curso Seq0encial (Certificate of Sequential Program Completion), 
https://www.aacrao.org/edge/cou ntry /credentials/ credential/braz iI/certifi cado-de-concIusao-de-curso-seq uencial-
( certificate-of -seq uential-program-comp Ietion) (last visited January 10, 2025, and incorporated into the record). 
4 See AACRAO, Who We Are, https://www.aacrao.org/who-we-are. 
5 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 Vi raj, LLC v. Holder, No. 2:12-CV-00127-
RWS, 2013 WL 1943431 (N.D. Ga. May 18, 2013). 
3 
establish that her educational background meets the equivalency requirements under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). However, the evaluation did not discuss the Petitioner's certificado de conclusao de 
curso issued in 2008, limiting the analysis to her 2006 titulo de licenciado. Further, the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) requires a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree, which means 
individuals cannot combine experience, training or education to supplement the three-year education 
degree to equate to a four-year education degree. See SnapNames.com, Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 
3491005 (D. Or. 2006) (where the beneficiary is required to hold a bachelor's degree or a foreign 
equivalent, a single degree is required). Therefore, the Petitioner's certificado de conclusao de curso 
in advanced English does not build on her titulo de licenciado to establish she has the foreign 
equivalent of a bachelor's degree. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director erred by not considering that her graduate studies and 
extensive teaching experience further support her qualification as a professional holding an advanced 
degree. In order to meet the definition of advanced degree through progressive experience, the 
Petitioner would first have to establish she has the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree 
followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Because 
the Petitioner has not established that she has the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, the 
Director did not err by not considering the Petitioner's experience in determining she was not an 
advanced degree professional. Last, as discussed above, the Petitioner cannot combine experience, 
training or education to supplement her three-year education program to equate to a four-year degree. 
The Petitioner also argues that the Director did not address any of the Dhanasar prongs and deprived 
the Petitioner of due process rights and raises arguments from below in support of the Petitioner's 
eligibility for a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. The Petitioner has provided no 
authority in support that the Director is mandated to make findings on issues after making a 
determination on a separate, dispositive issue. The Petitioner did not establish her eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 visa classification, which is required for the approval of the national interest waiver 
petition. As this determination is dispositive of this appeal, we similarly do not reach and reserve 
whether the Petitioner has metDhanasar's three prong framework. 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 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4