dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing And Communications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 21, 2025 In Re: 34885605 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a communications specialist and an entrepreneur in the marketing industry, 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 the record did not establish 
the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional or that she is eligible 
for the requested national interest waiver. 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 l&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 demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Visa Classification 
As indicated above, the Petitioner must first demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa 
classification. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. The Director determined the Petitioner is not an 
advanced degree professional and we agree. 2 
The Petitioner provided various documents, including a copy of her foreign degree (Titulo de Bacharel 
em Comunicacaca Social) and transcripts, along with certified translations, from the I I 
__________ in Brazil. As explained by the Director, documentation in the record 
indicates that the program length was three years. According to the school transcript, she was admitted 
in July 1993 and her "Date of the Graduation" was August 5, 1996 which is confirmed by the 
"Certificate" which states that the Petitioner was granted the degree "in the first semester 1997, and 
graduated on August 5, 1996." The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions 
Officers (AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) 3 states that: 
The 3-year Titulo de Bacharel/Grau de Bacharel represents attainment of a level of 
education comparable to 3 years of university study in the United States. Credit may 
be awarded on a course-by-course basis. The 4- or 5-year Titulo de Bacharel/Grau de 
Bacharel represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's 
degree in the United States. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's contention on appeal that the Director "erred in considering 
August 1996 as the date of completion" because the transcripts "clearly indicate [the Petitioner] 
completed a total of nine (9) semesters or four (4) years of study, commencing in July 1993 and 
concluding in June 1997 ," she does not offer any explanation for the August 1996 graduation date 
provided by the school in two separate documents. And although the Petitioner also submits a 
1 See also 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 USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 As the Petitioner has not claimed to qualify as an individual of exceptional ability, we need not address the separate 
requirements for that classification. 
3 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). For more information, visit https://www.aacrao.org/edge. 
2 
credential evaluation from Morningside Evaluations, it states the Petitioner completed four years of 
academic coursework and qualified for the Titulo de Bacharel in 1997 but does not address or explain 
the discrepancy with the dates. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in the 
record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 T &N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Thus, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that she holds the 
foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Moreover, the record also does not show she has at least five years of progressive experience in the 
specialty. A petitioner must provide "evidence in the form of letters from current or former 
employer(s) showing that [the petitioner] has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate 
experience in the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) ( emphasis added). On appeal, the Petitioner 
provides four employment letters that were previously submitted in response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE). 4 However, the employment letters are insufficient to establish that the Petitioner 
possesses at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. First, the 
letter froml is for the Petitioner's January 2023 employment, which is after the petition's 
filing. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing and, therefore, we will not consider 
the I I letter here. 5 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l2); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Comm'r 1971). Further, the letter froml lstates that the Petitioner "worked in a full-time 
position from 10/15/1995 to 02/01/2001 as a Store Operations Coordinator," a position unrelated to 
the specialty, communications specialist. Moreover, the letter froml Iwas prepared by the 
I I who is not the Petitioner's employer. While the Petitioner 
provides a letter from her previous employer, Iit shows only four years and seven months 
of experience in the specialty. Therefore, the record does not establish that the Petitioner possessed at 
least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
Because the Petitioner has not established that her degree is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's 
degree or that she has five years of progressive experience in the specialty, we cannot conclude that 
the Petitioner has established eligibility as an advanced degree professional. For this reason alone, the 
petition is not approvable. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a marketing and communications specialist 
through her own company, of which she owns 10%, and her current position as head of marketing for 
a food and beverage company. The Petitioner contends she is able "to provide high-quality services 
that will indirectly generate jobs for the U.S. citizens" and that her endeavor "will also contribute to 
the overall revenue growth of the marketing consultants industry." 
Turning to the first Dhanasar prong, the Director determined that, although the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit, she did not establish her endeavor is of national importance. 
4 The above-mentioned employment history is not listed on the Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment 
Certification, Appendix A. The Form 9089 instructions direct filers to identify "any relevant employment," but the 
Petitioner only listed her employment withl I The Petitioner does not provide an 
explanation as to why she did not list her employment with I Ion the Form 9089 but provides letters 
from these companies in response to the RFE and on appeal in support of her five years of experience in the specialty. 
5 The Petitioner filed the petition on July 1, 2021. 
3 
Specifically, the Director concluded that the proposed endeavor would not have broader implications 
in her field rising to the level of national importance. The Director further noted that the evidence did 
not support her proposed endeavor having potential prospective impact, such as significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers; substantial positive economic effects; or broad impact to enhance societal 
welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment. 
On appeal, the Petitioner stresses her professional knowledge and experience in her field to show her 
contributions to and influence on the marketing industry. However, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills 
and experience are considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The issue here 
is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner asserts her work as a marketing and communication specialist "holds substantial 
national importance due to its broad economic, social, and cultural contributions" and "[h] er 
contribution extends far beyond her company or employer, playing a pivotal role in industry growth, 
community welfare, and national economic development." The Petitioner, however, has not provided 
evidence demonstrating that her proposed endeavor would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level 
of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create 
a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims. Furthermore, while any basic 
economic activity has the potential to positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated how the asserted potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor stands to 
offer broader implications in her industry or to generate substantial positive economic effects. In 
Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, we 
conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
her future clients and employer(s) to impact her field of marketing, the economy, or U.S. societal 
welfare more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Specifically, we reviewed the Petitioner's business plan, which shows that the company will employ 
six foll-time employees, pay over $300,000 in payroll expenses, and generate a net worth of over 
$400,000 by its fifth year. Importantly however, these employment and revenue projections are not 
supported by details showing their basis, nor do they demonstrate a significant potential to either 
employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national economy. Here, the record 
does not support that the creation of six additional jobs in this sector or the expected revenue generated 
by the company will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the national importance 
element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
In addition, we reviewed the opinion letter from a professor at 
I In the national importance section of the letter, the author provides data and statistical 
references for the marketing and communications industry, and the food and beverage industry, as 
well as the laws and regulations that govern the marketing industry. The author, however, does not 
address the Petitioner's business plan, the specific proposed endeavor described therein, its 
prospective substantial economic impact, or any broader implications of the Petitioner's intended 
marketing and communications specialist services. In determining national importance, the relevant 
question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; 
4 
I 
instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Similarly, the articles and reports regarding the marketing 
industry do not address the specific proposed endeavor or how it would have broad implications in the 
field in a way that demonstrates national importance. 
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address her eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. The burden of proof 
is on the Petitioner to establish that she meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The Petitioner has not 
done so here and, therefore, we conclude that she has not established eligibility for a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5