dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechatronics Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 25, 2024 In Re: 31381486 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mechatronics engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 held an advanced degree, nor was he an individual of exceptional ability, 
nor that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 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 establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a 
discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of 
the Act. While neither statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter 
of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a matter of discretion,1 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• 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. 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner neither established that he has an advanced degree nor that he 
is an individual of exceptional ability, and as such did not establish that he qualifies for EB-2 
classification. The Director further found that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility under any of 
the three required prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework, and therefore did not establish that a 
waiver of the classification's job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
A. Qualification for EB-2 classification 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not dispute the Director's dete1mination that he is ineligible for EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Instead, the Petitioner 
asserts that he qualifies for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. "Exceptional 
ability" means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, 
arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). An individual must initially submit documentation that 
satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 2 Meeting at 
least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 3 If a 
petitioner does meet at least three criteria, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide 
whether the evidence in its totality shows that the individual is recognized as having the requisite 
degree of expertise and will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational 
interests, or welfare of the United States. Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. The Director found that 
the Petitioner met only two of the six initial criteria and, as a result, that he was ineligible for EB-2 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. For the reasons provided below, we agree with 
the Director and conclude that the Petitioner does not meet the initial evidentiary requirements for 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. We evaluate each of the regulatory criteria in 
turn. 
An official academic record showing that the alien 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
As evidence of meeting this criterion, the Petitioner submitted a copy of his vocational high school 
diploma as an electrical and electronic technician and letter attesting to completion of five additional 
2 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
3 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 
training courses.4 The Director accepted this as evidence to meet this criterion, as it relates to 
engineering, the Petitioner's stated area of exceptional ability. We agree with the Director's finding 
that the Petitioner has established eligibility that he meets this criterion. 
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). 
As claimed evidence of meeting this criterion, the Petitioner initially submitted two employment 
letters that provided the requisite dates of employment but did not state whether the Petitioner worked 
full-time. In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner furnished additional employment 
letters specifying that the Petitioner has ten years of experience, and worked full-time, in the 
engineering field. We agree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner 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). 
This criterion requires "[a] license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession 
or occupation." The Director found that no evidence was submitted to meet this criterion. On appeal, 
the Petitioner did not furnish evidence of a license to practice the profession or certification for a 
particular profession or occupation. 
A petitioner can submit comparable evidence to establish eligibility if the regulatory standards do not 
readily apply but must explain 1) why he has not submitted evidence that would satisfy the criteria set 
forth in 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii); and 2) why the evidence he has submitted is "comparable" to that 
required under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii). See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2). General 
assertions that any of the six objective criteria do not readily apply to the Petitioner's occupation are 
not acceptable. Id. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "electromechanics technician(s) and mechatronics 
technologists(s) typically need either an associate degree or post-secondary certificate degree to get 
their certifications" and points out that Petitioner's academic record shows the attainment of various 
training course certifications as well as "specialized certifications in the field of electrical and 
electromechanical systems installation that allows him to practice in the U.S." The Petitioner provided 
an employer's letter stating that he completed training courses in Field service management; SL 70 
labeler installation; Equipment Modularity Fundamentals, SINCRO non-conformity management; and 
Microsoft PowerPoint. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the evidence he 
submitted is comparable to having a certification or license to practice the profession. 
4 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/italy for information regarding the education system in Italy. 
3 
First, the Petitioner has not established that his completion of a vocational high school diploma as an 
electrical and electronic technician is comparable to a license or certification to practice his 
occupation. 
Secondly, we also find that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that taking five additional training 
courses is comparable to obtaining certification or Ii censure. Although the Petitioner claims that these 
training courses establish his exceptional ability in engineering, the record does not sufficiently 
demonstrate that the completion of these training courses show the same caliber of expertise as 
receiving a license to practice the profession or a certification for a particular profession. Licensure 
to practice a profession and certification for a profession or occupation generally demonstrate a level 
of knowledge or skill associated with the related occupation. Here, the Petitioner has not provided 
any supporting evidence to establish the requirements, if any, for taking additional training courses. 
The Petitioner's general assertions, without more, are not probative evidence and do not demonstrate 
that taking five additional training courses post-high school is comparable to obtaining a professional 
license or certification commensurate with the criterion. The Petitioner has also not shown that these 
training courses "allow[] him to practice in the U.S." Therefore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that he meets this criterion through the submission of comparable evidence. 
We conclude that the Petitioner's unsupported assertions, and absent the submission of the specific 
certifications he references, are not sufficient to meet his burden of proof for this criterion. See Matter 
of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 375-76. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided 
sufficient documentary evidence to establish this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). 
The Petitioner submitted letters from employers, pay statements, and tax documents. In response to 
an RFE, the Petitioner submitted additional tax documents, pay statements, and wage comparisons for 
the job title "electronics technician" from talent.com, salary.com, and indeed.com. The documentation 
indicates that the Petitioner was a senior field service engineer with responsibilities including 
managing installation projects, supervising technicians, and ensuring compliance with industry 
standards. The wage comparisons for "electronics technician" do not meet the Petitioner's burden to 
demonstrate he commanded a salary demonstrating exceptional ability for a senior field service 
engineer. Moreover, he has not established whether his wages include additional pay for overtime, 
hazard pay, or other additional amounts that would increase his earnings but would be unrelated to 
whether he demonstrates exceptional ability. For these reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
not established that the salary ranges represent an accurate salary comparison, nor has he established 
that the salary difference between the stated average salary and the Petitioner's salary is due to the 
Petitioner's exceptional ability. 
As such, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentary evidence or 
information to establish this criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
4 
The Petitioner does not assert that he meets this criterion. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has not provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish this criterion. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
The Petitioner does not assert that he meets this criterion. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has not provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish this criterion. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has established that he satisfies only two of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Because the Petitioner does not satisfy at least three of the criteria, we need not 
conduct a final merits determination to evaluate whether he has achieved the degree of expertise 
required for exceptional ability classification. As such, the Petitioner does not qualify as an individual 
of exceptional ability. Having determined that the Petitioner does not qualify as an individual of 
exceptional ability, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for the underlying 
EB-2 classification. 
B. Eligibility for a National Interest Waiver 
The next issue is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the classifications' job offer 
requirement is in the national interest. Because the Petitioner has not established that he meets the 
threshold requirement of eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, we need not address 
whether he is eligible for, and merits as a matter of discretion, a waiver of that classification's job 
offer requirement. 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 alternate issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that he satisfies the regulatory requirements for classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). Because the Petitioner has not established 
eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility for a national interest waiver. We reserve our opinion regarding whether the 
Petitioner has satisfied any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5