dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Project Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 11, 2024 In Re: 29460896 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a project manager, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an individual 
of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 
EB-2 classification. 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 Petitioner had not 
established eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability and 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 l&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 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)(B)(i) of the Act. The regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definition: "[e}xceptional ability in the 
sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered 
in the sciences, arts, or business." In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth 
the specific evidentiary requirements for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional 
ability. A petitioner must submit documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of 
evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). However, meeting the minimum requirements by 
providing at least three types of initial evidence does not, in itself, establish that the individual in fact 
meets the requirements for exceptional ability. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. In the second part of the analysis, officers should evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety for the final merits determination. Id. 
The officer must determine whether or not the petitioner, by a preponderance of the evidence, has 
demonstrated a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, 
or business. Id. 
Next, a petitioner 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 
I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• 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. 
As indicated above, the Petitioner must first meet at least three of the regulatory criteria for 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). The 
Director determined the Petitioner's qualification for only two criteria - 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 2 On appeal, the Petitioner maintains his satisfaction for an additional 
category - 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). After reviewing the evidence, we conclude the record does 
not support a finding of his eligibility for at least three. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) requires "[ e ]vidence ofrecognition for achievements and 
significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities or professional or business 
organizations."3 The Petitioner contends his submission of recommendation letters shows his eligibility 
for this criterion. While the letters highlight various projects completed by the Petitioner and praise his 
professional abilities and personal traits, they do not indicate how he has been recognized for his 
achievements, nor do they explain how his contributions have risen to the level of "significant" consistent 
with this regulation. For instance4, A-B-M-C- described the Petitioner as "an excellent professional" and 
stated that he "has contributed significantly to the [] client, since through his experience in Upgrade 
projects he has been able to identify and anticipate situations ... providing timely support to the client 
with the intention of minimizing risks, guiding the proper management of solutions .... " The letter, 
however, does not further elaborate and explain how the Petitioner's achievements have been recognized 
or how his contributions have been considered "significant" to the industry or field. 
Likewise, J-G-P-M- indicated a few projects he collaborated with the Petitioner and indicated that the 
Petitioner "was responsible of developers and functional team" and "was a key piece because of his deep 
knowledge." Again, the letter does not show whether the Petitioner's achievements have been recognized 
in the industry or field and how the Petitioner's contributions have been viewed as "significant" to the 
industry or field. Similarly, A-P- described the Petitioner as "an outstanding and complete professional" 
without further expounding on any recognition the Petitioner received from his achievements or 
explaining whether the industry or field deems his contributions to be significant. 
Here, the letters do not show how his contributions have impacted or influenced the field or industry in a 
significant manner beyond his employers. Without detailed, probative information, the letters do not 
sufficiently demonstrate his recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or 
field. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 See the Director's request for evidence. 
3 See also 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
4 Although we reference a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility for any additional criteria on appeal thereby satisfying at 
least three criteria. Accordingly, we need not provide a final merits determination to evaluate whether 
the Petitioner has achieved the required level of expertise required for exceptional ability 
classification. 5 In addition, we need not reach a decision on whether, as a matter of discretion, he is 
eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 6 The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with 
each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
6 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
3