dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law Enforcement

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25690629 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 1, 2023 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a police investigator, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or, in the alternative , as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or 
business. 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 off errequirementthat is attached to this EB-2 
immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2XB)(i). U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services 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 the Petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or, in the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability . The Director further concluded 
that, because the Petitioner has not qualified for second-preference classification, he is ineligible for, 
and does not merit, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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. Section 203(b )(2) of the Act. The regulations 
define an advanced degree as either "any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of a baccalaureate" or a "United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty." 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(k)(2). The regulations further specify that, in order to establish the equivalent of an advanced 
degree by a combination of education and experience, a petition must be accompanied by an official 
academic record showing that the individual has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters from current or former employers showing that 
the individual has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). In the alternative, 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 
A brief summary of the procedural history of this matter is as follows. After the Petitioner filed the 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Director sent the Petitioner a request for 
evidence (RFE), noting that "it has not been established that the [Petitioner] qualifies for the E2 l 
classification with and advanced [sic] degree" and, furthermore, that "[n]o representations have been 
made that the [Petitioner] has exceptional ability and no discussion was provided." After the Petitioner 
responded to the RFE, the Director dismissed the appeal without first determining whether the 
Petitioner established eligibility for second-preference classification under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the 
Act. We withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matter for a determination of whether 
the Petitioner established eligibility for second-preference classification. The Director sent another 
RFE, to which the Petitioner responded, and the Director denied the Form I-140 a second time, 
concluding that the record does not establish the Petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative, as an individual of exceptional 
ability. The Petitioner then appealed the matter a second time. 
On second appeal, the Petitioner asserts in a two-paragraph brief that he "cannot understand the 
assessment" in the Director's decision, "mainly to the requirement about my training and its 
applicability to my Investigator Police career 'Professions Holding an Advanced Degree."' The 
Petitioner also resubmits his second RFE response in support of the appeal. 
The record contains a photocopy of a degree in a language other than English, and a certified English 
translation of it. The translation indicates that I I University granted the Petitioner a 
bachelor's degree in accounting sciences. An accompanying transcript of courses the Petitioner 
completed, and a certified English translation of it, indicates that the Petitioner completed coursework 
consistent with an academic specialty in accounting, with some general education or elective 
coursework such as "Portuguese I" and "Indoor Soccer I." The record also contains an academic 
credentials evaluation from United States Credential Evaluations, stating that the Petitioner's degree 
is "the U.S.A. equivalent of: Bachelor's Degree in Accounting awarded by regionally accredited 
Universities in the United States." Although the record contains other job-training certificates issued 
from one or more nonacademic institutions, the record does not contain, and the Petitioner does not 
assert that he received, a degree from an academic institution other than his degree equivalent to a 
U.S. bachelor's degree in accounting. 
The Petitioner did not specifically identify his desired occupation on the Form I-140-the entire 
section "Part 6. Basic Information Aboutthe Proposed Employment," including fields for the job title, 
a nontechnical job description, wages, and worksite location, is blank. However, in a statement 
submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner summarized his work experience "in the role of 
Inspector and Investigator ... in the Civil Police," and he asserted that his prospective endeavor's 
"commitment will be to fight crime in accordance with the law." The Petitioner further asserted in 
that statement that his "goal is professional growth within the Government Institution, performing the 
function intended for me, applying the BIO security standards, and ensuring the life, integrity and 
2 
security of every society, as well as my team growth." In response to the Director's secondRFE, the 
Petitioner asserted that he "is specialized in law enforcement in Brazil" and that "public securities 
patrol assigned areas, observe and investigate suspicious behavior, enforce laws, apprehend suspects, 
and prepare incident reports." Although the Petitioner explains how his bachelor's degree in 
accounting related to his former career in accounting, he also states, "Since 2008, [the Petitioner] has 
been a Police Investigator for the Civil Judicial Police of the State of without any 
further reference to accounting work. The Petitioner does not explain how his bachelor's degree in 
accounting is in the specialty of police investigation. 
In order for a combination of a bachelor's degree and at least five years of progressive experience to 
qualify for the equivalent of a master's degree, and thus the equivalent of an advanced degree, both 
the bachelor's degree and the experience must be "in the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). As the 
Director concluded in the decision, the record does notestablishhowthe Petitioner's bachelor's degree 
in accounting is "in a field that relates to his proposed endeavor" of police investigation, which entails 
in the Petitioner's own words, patrolling assigned areas, observing and investigating suspicious 
behavior, enforcing laws, apprehending suspects, and preparing incident reports. Because the record 
does not establish that the Petitioner has a bachelor's degree in the specialty, he cannot qualify for 
second-preference classification as an advanced degree professional, regardless of whether he has 
sufficient progressive experience in the specialty, because the classification nevertheless requires a 
qualifying degree in the proposed endeavor's specialty. See id. 
We note that the Petitioner may qualify for second-preference classification, in the alternative, as an 
individual of exceptional ability. However, the only criterion that the Petitioner references on appeal 
is the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), which requires "[a]nofficialacademicrecordshowing 
that the [noncitizen] has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, 
school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability." For similar reasons 
to those explained above, the record does not establish how the Petitioner's bachelor's degree in 
accounting is "relating to the area of exceptional ability" in police investigation; therefore, it does not 
satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). Similarly, as the Director explained in the 
decision, although the record contains various training certificates relating to police investigation, the 
record does not establish that they are "from a college, university, school, or other institution of 
learning" as required by regulation; therefore, they also do not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). Moreover, the Petitioner does not identify on appeal at least three of the six 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3 )(ii) under which he may qualify as an individual of exceptional ability, 
and the record does not support such a conclusion; therefore, we need not further address whether the 
Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
For the reasons explained above, the record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second­
preference classification as an advanced degree professional or, in the alternative, as an individual of 
exceptional ability; therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3