dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Public Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6062876 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 7, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability, but that she had not had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of the labor certification , would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner appealed the matter to us. We dismissed the appeal and denied seven subsequent 
motions to reopen. 1 Contrary to the Director's detennination , we also found that the Petitioner had 
not established she qualified for the underlying immigrant classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. The matter is now 
before us on an eighth motion to reopen. With the motion, the Petitioner submits additional 
documentation and a brief asserting that she is eligible for EB-2 classification and a national interest 
waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
I.LAW 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to 
reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements 
and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
1 Matter ofT-A-Y- , ID# 2525500 (AAO Mar. 26, 2019) was our most recent decision in this matter. 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Additionally, in order to demonstrate exceptional ability, a petitioner must submit at least three of the 
types of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 
Furthermore, with respect to demonstrating eligibility for a national interest waiver pursuant to 
section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
petitions in the precedent decision Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 2 Dhanasar 
states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 3, grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit 
and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements 
of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
With the instant motion, the Petitioner resubmits her April 2005 diploma fromOUniversity. This 
diploma states that she completed a "one year course of studies" and received a "Master's degree" in 
Public Administration. In addition, she resubmits the December 201 7 "credential evaluation report" 
from USCES, LLC stating that her "Archival Certificate - Master's Degree in Public Administration, 
issued by the I t' in April 2005 is the equivalent of a 
"Master's Degree in Public Administration awarded by regionally accredited universities in the United 
States." 
In our previous decisions, we noted that that the aforementioned evaluation from USCES did not 
specify the number of semesters the Petitioner completed or the number of academic credits she was 
awarded. This evaluation also did not list the educational documents fromc=JUniversity that the 
evaluator reviewed in reaching his conclusion. For example, the evaluation stated that it was based 
on an "Archival Certificate" from "the~----------------~·" Accordingly, 
the record did not show that the credentials reviewed by the evaluator were the same educational 
2 In announcing this new rramework. we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation. 22 T&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
3 See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
4 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
documents that were submitted to the record in this case. The Petitioner was informed that she had 
not resolved these ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-592 (BIA 1988). 
On motion, the Petitioner requests that we accept her diploma fromOUniversity because USCES 
"confirm[ed] it is the equivalent of U.S. Ma[s]ter['s] Degree with all the credits completed to receive 
the degree," but she has not identified any new facts supported by documentary evidence to meet the 
requirements of a motion to reopen. Nor has she presented information or evidence resolving the 
ambiguities discussed above. As explained in our previous decisions, because the USCES evaluation 
did not adequately explain its conclusion that the Petitioner's foreign diploma is equivalent to a United 
States degree as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A), it is insufficient to establish her eligibility 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
B. Exceptional Ability 
The Petitioner's motion repeats previous arguments that she satisfies at least three of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). As discussed below, our review of the documentation provided on 
motion does not show that she meets at least three criteria. 
In our prior decisions, we concluded that the Petitioner had satisfied only one regulatory criterion: 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). With regard to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) and (E), the 
Petitioner's current motion to reo en contends that her membe~ship in the l I School 
meets those criteria.) She offers a website screenshot from .======~======;---------' 
~---------' listing Bulgarians who are members of thel I As noted in our prior 
decision, the Petitioner' sl I membership post-dates the filing of the petition. Eligibility must 
be established at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). Accordingly, the documentation offered 
on motion does not establish that the Petitioner meets at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and that she has achieved the level of expertise required for exceptional 
ability classification. 
C. National Interest Waiver 
The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. As noted in our prior decisions, in order 
to qualify for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner must first show that she qualifies for 
classification under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act as either an advanced degree professional or an 
individual of exceptional ability. Furthermore, we explained in our decisions that she had not met the 
requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. On motion, the Petitioner does not 
offer new facts or evidence relevant to our findings. Instead, the Petitioner resubmits a letter froni I ~---~I that we previously considered in our decision denying the Petitioner's fourth motion to 
reopen. In addition to not establishing the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification, the 
aforementioned letter does not render her eligible for a national interest waiver under the framework 
set forth in Dhanasar. 
5 She previously submitted a July 2017 ce1iificate stating that she "has attained alumni status fro111I I School 
by successfully completing the 14th Session ofthel~~-----~--~--------~t 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence provided in support of the motion to reopen does not overcome the grounds underlying our 
previous decision. The Petitioner has not established eligibility as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. Furthermore, as the Petitioner has not 
met the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that she has not 
established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
4