dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Security Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 29, 2024 In Re: 30624913 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a security management specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner 
also seeks anational interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate his eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification, or 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 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 Christo '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 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
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). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence: 
(A) 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; 
(B) 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; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession 
or occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other renumeration for 
services, which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) 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). 1 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows that the 
petitioner is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered 
in the field. 2 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination) ; see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step 
analysis is consistent with our holding that the "trut h is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of evidence 
for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality 
of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of Chawathe, 
25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability , they 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 the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual 's occupation , a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 
waiver pet1t1ons. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion,3 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. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to establish a security services business in the United States for which he 
would its general director and security management specialist. The Director found that the Petitioner 
did not establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability. The Director further found that the Petitioner did not merit a discretionary waiver of the job 
offer requirement in the national interest. 
With respect to the underlying EB-2 classification, the Petitioner submitted evidence to meet five of 
the six criteria for exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The Director concluded that 
the Petitioner only met two of the regulatory criteria, academic record at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
and ten years of full-time experience in his proposed occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
However, as discussed below, we find the record does not support the conclusion that the Petitioner 
meets either criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts being an individual of exceptional ability by satisfying two criteria, 
membership in professional associations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) and recognition for 
achievements and significant contributions to the industry at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). The 
Petitioner does not address or contest on appeal the Director's finding that he does not meet the 
criterion that he has a license to practice his profession or certification for his profession or occupation 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). Accordingly, we deem this ground to be waived.4 
After reviewing the evidence in the record, the Petitioner has not demonstrated satisfying at least three 
of the six initial evidentiary criteria for being an individual of exceptional ability and is not otherwise 
eligible for the requested benefit. 5 
3 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
Circuit Court in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
4 An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 l&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter 
of R-A-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
5 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
An official academic record showing that the individual 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). 
The Director determined the Petitioner met this criterion but did not provide an explanation for the 
determination. To meet this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of three foreign language 
diplomas with English translations. In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director acknowledged 
receipt of the foreign language documents with the English translations but notified the Petitioner that 
the documents could not be considered because they lacked certifications from the translator that the 
translations were complete and accurate, and that the translator was competent to translate from the 
foreign language into English. The Director requested documentation to fulfill the criterion and that 
any foreign language document be accompanied by full and complete English translation and the 
requisite translator certification. Although the Director specifically requested these documents in the 
RFE, the Petitioner only indicated in his response that he was submitting a translator certification 
which should be considered as a translator certification for the documents included with the initial 
petition. Upon review of the record, the translator certification submitted with the RFE response is 
unrelated to the Petitioner's foreign language diplomas, instead is a translator certification for an 
employment verification certificate. 
The Petitioner is required to submit a copy of documents accompanied by a full English language 
translation. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English language 
translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign 
language into English. Id. Without a certified English translation, we are unable to determine the 
evidence's relevance and reliability on the issue of whether the Petitioner has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a learning institution relating to his area of exceptional ability. 
Had the Petitioner submitted the required English translations with the translator certification for his 
three diplomas, they would nevertheless be insufficient to meet the criterion. Based on the uncertified 
English translations, the first diploma is from the _____________ Brazil, 
granting him the title of technologist of overt police and preservation of public order after completing 
the technologist course in overt police and preservation in 2018. The second diploma is from the 
Brazil "for having concluded the Military PM Formation Course" in 2007. And the thi rd di ploma is from I I 
I I Brazil for the Petitioner's completion of the full professional qualification - data processing 
technician for the title of data processing technician in 1997. However, the record does not include an 
official academic record for any of the diplomas, as required under the criterion. In addition, the 
record does not show that any of the diplomas are from an institution of learning or that the diplomas 
relate to the Petitioner's area of exceptional ability, a security management specialist. As such, even 
if the Petitioner submitted the requisite English translations with the translator certification, the 
evidence provided does not include an official academic record showing any of the diplomas are from 
an institution of learning relating to the Petitioner's area of exceptional ability. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language of the criterion. We withdraw the 
Director's finding otherwise. 
4 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that 
the individual 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). 
The Petitioner relies on his experience with thel II I in Brazil to meet this criterion. A certificate from thel lstates he "took office in 
public office as on June 12, 2006 ... being exonerated on 
request on Ma 19, 2022, then in the raduation of having as last 
unit the ... " However, the certificate lacks sufficient 
details of his job duties to determine whether his experience was in the occupation being sought. In 
addition, the certificate does not indicate whether his work with thel lwas full-time, as 
required under the plain language of the criterion. Therefore, the certificate from the Petitioner's 
former employer does not show his experience was full-time or was in the occupation being sought, 
security management specialist. 
Because the evidence provided does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has at least ten years of full­
time experience in his proposed occupation as a security management specialist, the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets the plain language of the criterion. Therefore, we withdraw the Director's 
finding regarding this criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit evidence to meet this criterion and therefore 
it was not met. However, the record indicates that the Petitioner submitted foreign language 
documents with En lish translations of his identification card and a declaration from 
the The record also 
indicates that the Director's RFE acknowledged receipt of the foreign language documents with 
English translations to meet the criterion but notified the Petitioner that the documents were not 
accompanied by the requisite translator certification. The Director requested documentation to fulfill 
the criterion and that any foreign language document be accompanied by full and complete English 
translation and the requisite translator certification. Although the Director specifically requested these 
documents in the RFE, the Petitioner only indicated in his response that he was submitting a translator 
certification which should be considered as a translator certification for the documents included with 
the initial petition. As discussed above, the record shows that the translator certification submitted 
with the RFE response is unrelated to the Petitioner's foreign language membership documents; it 
instead is a translator certification for an employment verification certificate. 
On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits the foreign language documents accompanied by the English 
translation and the requisite translator certification. The Petitioner also submits laws related to persons 
with disabilities, however, offers no context for the purpose of these laws. His I I 
identification is dated in 2006 and states the Petitioner's post or rank as and his 
identity specifics. The declaration is dated in 2022 and states that the Petitioner is enrolled as a 
member of the __________ since 2012 and is "up to date with his associative 
contribution." 
5 
I 
This criterion requires evidence of membership in a professional assocIatIon. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "profession" as any occupation having a minimum requirement of a 
U.S. bachelor's de ree or forei n e uivalent for ent into the occu ation. The record does not show 
that either the lis comprised of individuals who have earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent, or that it otherwise constitutes aprofessional association. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated his membership in a professional association under 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 Director did not consider the Petitioner's documents submitted for this criterion because the 
foreign language documents and English translations were not accompanied by the requisite translator 
certification. On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits several letters of recommendation, however, only 
three of the foreign language letters are accompanied by English translation and the requisite translator 
certification. The other letters submitted on appeal will not be considered because they are in aforeign 
language and are not accompanied by either the English translation or the translator's certification. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The Petitioner maintains that the letters "confirm [his] unique expertise, describing the positive impact 
of [his] area of expertise." The letters are from the Petitioner's former colleagues and generally attest 
to him being a committed and knowledgeable member of thel I While the letters show 
that the Petitioner was a professional and committed member of the I I and his former 
colleagues value his work and dedication to the I I they do not identify, and thus 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to 
his industry or field, as required under the criterion. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated he 
meets this criterion. 
Because the Petitioner has not established that he meets at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) through (F), we need not conduct a final merits analysis to determine 
whether the evidence in its totality shows that he is recognized as having a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate and conclude 
that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the recognition required for 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established his qualification for the EB-2 classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, and is therefore ineligible for a national interest 
waiver. While the Petitioner asserts on appeal that he meets all three of the prongs under the Dhanasar 
analytical framework and is otherwise eligible for the national interest waiver, we reserve our opinion 
regarding these issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
6 
they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7