dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Security Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 12, 2023 In Re: 26965512 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a security services specialist and entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. See section 203(b)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § l 153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national 
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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement 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. 
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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 
II. ADVANCED DEGREE PROFESSIONAL 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, noting that he submitted evidence that he "holds the equivalent of a Master of Arts 
in Security Management." For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the record does not 
support the Director's determination that the Petitioner holds an advanced degree as defined at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). 
The Petitioner submitted the following evidence in support of his claim that he qualifies for EB-2 
classification as an advanced degree professional: 
• Diploma issued by Ministry of Defense, Brazilian Army 38th Infantry Battalion, indicating 
that the Petitioner completed "the Infantry Course of the Center for Preparation of Reserve 
Officers" i~ 12008. 
• Certificate and school curriculum issued by University! !(Brazil) indicating that the 
Petitioner completed a "Higher Education Course of Technology in Private Security 
Management" in January 2011, resulting in the degree of "Technologist" following studies 
completed over the course of two and one-half years. 
• Certificate and transcript issued by the Center of Higher Education I ICBrazil) 
indicating that Petitioner completed a one-year postgraduate course in criminology in 2015, 
for which he was granted the degree of "Specialist." 
The Petitioner also provided an "Evaluation of Training, Education and Experience" from USA 
Evaluations. 2 The evaluator's report states the following regarding the Petitioner's diploma from the 
Brazilian army: 
Graduation from high school and competitive entrance examinations are requirements 
for admission and enrollment at Brazilian Army which is an accredited institution of 
higher learning in Brazil. Following his enrollment in the University, [the Petitioner] 
completed academic coursework, and in 2008, he completed examinations and was 
awarded an Aspiring Officer of the Infantry of the Brazilian Army degree. The diploma 
demonstrates that he completed his four-year course of studies at Brazilian Army. 
[He] completed coursework in general studies and in his area of concentration, Infantry 
of the Army, which leads to a degree from the University. 
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 The evaluation is on the letterhead 
I 
of USA Evaluations; the individual who prepared the evaluation states that he is a 
"senior evaluator forl 
2 
The evaluator's report also mentions the Petitioner's completion of studies at University!.______, 
and the Center of Higher Education! !noting that the Petitioner, "with a four year degree, a 
Higher Education degree, a Specialization and more than 9 years of experience, has no less than the 
equivalent of a Master of Arts in Security Management." 
We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign education as an advisory opinion. 
Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we may discount or give less weight to 
that evaluation. Here, the evaluator appears to opine that the Petitioner's diploma received upon 
completion of an infantry officer training course in the Brazilian army is equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree, which is typically awarded after four years of study. Other evidence in the record 
contradicts the evaluator's determination that the Petitioner completed four years of post-secondary 
study in the Brazilian army. First, the Petitioner's academic transcript from University! I 
indicates he completed high school in 2006, just two years prior to receiving his diploma from the 
Brazilian army at 19 years of age and it is therefore unclear how he could have completed four years 
of post-secondary education as of 2008. Further, the Petitioner did not submit a transcript for his 
coursework or any other evidence supporting the evaluator's conclusion that the Brazilian army 
infantry course was a four-year academic program. 
Finally, the record contains the Petitioner's "Certificate of Military Service" and "Certificate of Time 
of Military Service" issued by the Brazilian Ministry of Defense. This document indicates that the 
Petitioner was "registered" on I . I 2008, and "licensed" onl 12008, the same 
date of completion provided on his military-issued diploma. It indicates his "time of service ... as an 
OFR student" and his "total time of service in the military" as "Zero Year[ s ], Seven Months and Two 
Days." Therefore, the record does not support the evaluator's opinion that the Petitioner completed 
four years of post-secondary education with the Brazilian army or that his infantry course diploma is 
equivalent to a four-year bachelor's degree. For these reasons, we conclude the evaluation holds little 
probative value in this matter. 
The Petitioner's academic records reflect his completion of two and one-half years of postsecondary 
education and one year of postgraduate coursework in two separate and unrelated programs, but the 
submitted evaluation does not offer any individualized analysis or conclusion regarding the 
equivalency of the Petitioner's "technologist" and "specialist" diplomas. 
We have also consulted the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), 3 created by the 
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). 4 EDGE 
includes a list of credentials from Brazil. The list includes the following credentials that represent 
attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's or master's degree, respectively, in the 
United States: 
• Titulo de bacharel (title of bachelor); 
3 EDGE is described on its registration page as "a web-based resource for the evaluation of foreign educational credentials." 
http://edge.aacrao.org/info.php. 
4 AACRAO is described on its website as "a nonprofit, voluntary, professional association of more than 11,000 higher 
education admissions and registration professionals who represent more than 2,600 institutions in over 40 countries." 
http://www.aacrao.org/who-we-are. 
3 
• Titulo de mestre (master's degree program); and 
• Mestrado professional (professional master's degree program). 
Here, the Petitioner did not provide an official academic record demonstrating that he possesses any 
of these credentials. EDGE indicates that a "title of technologist" is "awarded following 2 to 3 years 
of university study," while a "specialist" title is awarded "following programs of various lengths; most 
are at least 1 year long." 5 This information is consistent with the academic transcripts provided for the 
Petitioner's respective post-secondary programs. 
To demonstrate education and experience equating to an advanced degree under section 203(b )(2) of 
the Act, the Petitioner must have a single degree that is the "foreign equivalent degree" to a United 
States baccalaureate degree (plus five years of progressive experience in the specialty). See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). A United States baccalaureate degree is generally found to require four years of 
education. See Matter ofShah, 17 I&N Dec. 244, 245 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977). There is no provision 
in the statute or the regulations that would allow a petitioner to qualify under section 203(b)(2) of the 
Act as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with anything less than a foll 
baccalaureate degree (plus five years of progressive experience in the specialty). 
Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner is eligible for EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
Because the Petitioner has not established his qualification for the underlying EB-2 classification, he 
is not eligible for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. However, we will address 
the Director's decision and discuss the remaining issue of whether the Petitioner submitted evidence 
that would otherwise establish that a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement would be in the 
national interest. 6 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner indicated that he intends to advance his career as a security services 
specialist in the fields of law enforcement, criminal justice, and public safety. Specifically, he stated 
that, once he obtains U.S. lawful permanent residence and the appropriate licensure, he intends to 
operate his own security training and consulting firm, '1 I" to "advise and train all 
forms of public and private security officials and law enforcement members in the United States," and 
"to provide specialized consulting for U.S. law enforcement agencies." In response to a request for 
evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an updated personal statement and a business plan for '0 
I twhich he states will offer "personal, property, and residential security 
services, as well as cybersecurity, international travel advisory and training services," and "consulting 
services for corporate security." 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the specific endeavor the individual proposes 
to undertake and requires the Petitioner to establish both the substantial merit and national importance 
5 See Brazil Credentials, https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/credentials/brazil. 
6 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
of the endeavor. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, 
entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining whether the 
proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner established that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit 
but determined he did not meet his burden to establish the national importance of the endeavor. 
Specifically, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not shown how his proposed endeavor 
would have broader implications within his field that would reach beyond clients utilizing his services, 
or that it would broadly enhance societal welfare. In this regard, the Director observed that claims 
that the proposed endeavor would "contribute to a streamlined criminal justice system and a responsive 
and advanced law enforcement sector" and that the endeavor is "linked to national security" were not 
substantiated in the record. The Director farther observed that the record did not demonstrate that the 
proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, would impact an economically 
depressed area, or would have benefits to the regional or national economy that would reach the level 
of "substantial economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director did not apply the preponderance of the evidence 
standard and did not give due regard to the Petitioner's business plan and definitive statement, industry 
reports and articles demonstrating the national importance of his proposed endeavor, and evidence of 
his professional experience and accomplishments. With respect to the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor, the Petitioner points to the staffing and income projections in his company's 
business plan and emphasizes that he will establish the company in a Small Business Administration 
(SBA) HUBZone area in Florida. He farther maintains that he "has broadly impacted the security 
services sector" throughout his career and that he will continue to do so as an entrepreneur in this 
sector in the United States. In support of these claims, he references previously submitted media 
articles and reports regarding challenges facing law enforcement and the impacts of immigrants and 
entrepreneurs on the U.S. economy, noting that "firms and businesses owned by new Americans 
provide millions of jobs for U.S. workers and generate billions of dollars in annual income." 
For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner's business plan and personal statements emphasize the challenges currently facing U.S. 
law enforcement agencies, and he provided industry articles and reports addressing national concerns 
in the field, including the opioid crisis, gun violence and surging homicide rates, rising rates of 
technology-based crime, increased public and media scrutiny oflaw enforcement agencies, and issues 
regarding law enforcement officer recruitment and retention. We do not question the significance of 
these issues and their direct bearing on public safety and security, or their indirect impact on other 
aspects of life in the United States. The record also contains reports that discuss the private security 
industry as a "crucial component of security and safety in the United States." When determining 
national importance, however, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposed to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 
farther noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n 
5 
undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. 
Based on the business plan submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner has not shown how the 
private security services he intends to provide to individuals and businesses would have broader 
implications in the private security, public safety, or law enforcement sector. He broadly states that 
"a reduction in crime and increased levels of safety will have a positive impact on individuals' overall 
quality of life" but the record does not provide adequate support for a determination that his specific 
proposed endeavor will have such a wide-reaching impact. 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, the record supports the Director's 
conclusion that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish what the broader 
implications of his work would be, or that his work would extend beyond his company and its clients 
to impact the private security services industry in which it intends to operate, or that it would broadly 
enhance societal welfare at a level commensurate with national importance. While the Petitioner 
proposes to perform work in an area of national importance, this is not necessarily sufficient to 
establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
We also stated in Dhanasar that "[ a ]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers 
or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for 
instance, may will be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. On appeal, the Petitioner 
emphasizes that he will establish his company in an SBA HUBZone area in Florida where it will 
generate "192 full-time and part-time jobs for U.S. workers with an expected total payment of wages 
of approximately $8.2 million dollars in the first five years." 
We reviewed the Petitioner's business plan, including its revenue and employment projections. The 
business plan does not corroborate the job creation claims that the Petitioner makes on appeal. Rather, 
the Petitioner's business plan projects the employment of 81 staff and payroll of expenses of $3.94 
million by its fifth year of operations. Regardless, the job creation and revenue projections included 
in the Petitioner's business plan are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of 
how those projections will be realized. Even if the Petitioner had established a sufficient basis for 
these projections, they would not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. While 
the sales forecast and projected income statement indicate that the Petitioner's company has growth 
potential, it does not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from 
his undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated 
by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where his company will 
operate I I Florida) is economically depressed, that it would employ a significant population of 
workers in that area, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial 
economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that his business will operate in an SBA HUBZone in Florida and appears to equate a HUBZone with 
an "economically depressed area." 7 However, the Petitioner's business plan states only that the 
7 Under the HUBZone program, the U.S. government seeks to fuel small business growth in historically underutilized 
6 
business will open inl IFlorida; it makes no mention of the HUBZone program or its intent to 
establish a location within a designated HUB Zone or to participate in the program. We have also 
considered claims that there are labor shortages in the Petitioner's industry, but he has not suggested 
that his proposed endeavor would lessen the shortage of trained security professionals on a scale rising 
to the level of national importance or that the specific services his company will offer are otherwise 
scarce in the region or in the United States. In fact, the record reflects that Florida is home to almost 
10% of the security services establishments in the United States and it does not appear that the region 
is underserved. 
For all these reasons, the Petitioner has not shown his endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or that the specific proposed endeavor would offer a region or its population a substantial 
economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, trade, or related tax revenue. 
In his personal statements and appellate brief: the Petitioner has placed considerable emphasis on his 
academic training in private security management and his professional experience in the field. The 
record also contains recommendation letters from his former employers in Brazil. While important, 
the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his academic and professional career primarily relates to 
the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to 
the foreign national." Id. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to 
undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. A determination regarding the 
claimed national importance of a specific proposed endeavor cannot be inferred based on the 
Petitioner's past accomplishments, just as it cannot be inferred based on general claims about the 
importance of a given field or industry. While the Petitioner maintains that he has already "broadly 
impacted the security services sector" through his performance in a "wide range of distinctive industry 
roles," the submitted recommendation letters do not contain sufficient detail to corroborate this 
claimed impact. 
Filnally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided an expert opinion letter from an adjunct professor 
at 1University. In addressing the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the author describes 
Brazil's "extensive and well-developed security market" and the opportunities it presents for security 
suppliers. He states that U.S. companies "doing business or planning to do business in Brazil would 
benefit from the expertise and skills of a criminologist and a private security manager with an extensive 
knowledge of the legal landscape in Brazil." The professor concludes that the Petitioner's work would 
be "in an area of substantial merit and national importance." However, the author does not address 
the Petitioner's business plan, the specific proposed endeavor, and its prospective substantial 
economic impact, nor does he address the broader implications of the proposed endeavor in the field. 
In fact, the author appears to be under the impression that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will be 
limited to consulting with companies intending to enter the Brazilian security market, which is not the 
business model described by the Petitioner. Further, most of the letter's discussion of the first prong 
of the Dhanasar analysis simply provides background information about Brazil's security market. 
business zones, with a goal of annually awarding at least 3% of federal contract dollars to HUBZone-certified companies 
annually. See "HUB Zone Program," https://www .sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistanceprograms/hubzone­
program. 
7 
We observe that USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, 
professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of 
Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of 
D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445,460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert 
testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much of the content 
of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
For the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
Because the Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor has national importance, he is not 
eligible for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. We reserve our 
opinion regarding whether the evidence of record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 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 ofL-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons 
discussed, the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for the underlying EB-
2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Further, he has not 
established that he merits, as a matter of discretion, a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this classification. 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. 
8