dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Sport Nutrition

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 02, 2024 In Re: 32542735 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualified as a professional with an advanced degree, individual with a 
bachelor's degree and five years of progressive experience or a person of exceptional ability. The 
director additionally found that the petitioner did not meet the requirements for a waiver of the job 
offer and labor certification requirements for EB-2 classification. The matter is now before us on 
appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. On appeal, the Petitioner states that she provided evidence of her 
master's degree from Brazil and that the Director did not apply the appropriate standard of proof when 
reviewing the evidence. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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). 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are 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. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they 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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 T&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,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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a citizen and national of Brazil currently residing in the United States, proposed to 
open a sport nutrition retail enterprise in the United States. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
had not demonstrated that she is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an 
individual of exceptional ability. The Director further determined that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor did not meet any of the three criteria in the Dhanasar framework. On Appeal, the Petitioner 
alleges that the Director did not use the appropriate standard of proof or consider the evidence provided 
in support of the petition. Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's decision, in part, but 
dismiss the appeal. 
A. Advanced Degree Professional 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not qualify as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The Petitioner asserts that she completed a Master of Business Administration 
(MBA) program and post graduate studies in International Relations. As evidence of completion of 
1 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). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
3 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining 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). 
2 
the MBA program the Petitioner provided a copy of a certificate for an "executive MBA" course 
provided by The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence 
that ____________ is an accredited educational institution or that the completion 
of the program is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree. 
The Petitioner also provided a copy of a certificate of completion for a specialization course in 
"Contemporary International Relations: Actors and Processes" with a list of lectures completed from 
the She argues that this certificate is the equivalent 
of a U.S. Master's degree program. 
Information from the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers 
(AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) supports the evaluation, stating that: 4 
The 3-year Titulo de Bacharel/Grau de Bacharel represents attainment of a level of education 
comparable to 3 years of university study in the United States. Credit may be awarded on a 
course-by-course basis. The 4- or 5-year Titulo de Bacharel/Grau de Bacharel represents 
attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States. 
EDGE also indicates that: 
Professional development and specialization programs are considered lato sensus/ wide sense 
graduate level programs and follow independent legislation. Such programs lead toward 
professional certificates, not graduate degrees. They require 1 to 2 or 3 years of study. 
The Petitioner received a "Certificate of the Lato Sensu Graduation Course" from the Central Office 
of Continuing Education at _________________ As described above, a 
Latu Sensu certificate is not the equivalent of a U.S. Master's degree unless later accepted by a 
graduate studies program. The Petitioner did not provide evidence that the courses completed in 
international relations were later transferred into a master's degree program. Despite her claims on 
appeal, the Petitioner did not submit evidence of an equivalency evaluation for any of her post­
graduate course work and has not provided any additional evidence to support her claims that these 
courses constitute the equivalent of a U.S. Master's degree. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
established that she has the equivalent of a U.S. post-graduate degree. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's undergraduate diploma was not the equivalent of a 4-
year bachelor's degree in the United States. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in 
finding that her diploma was not the equivalent of a U.S. degree. The Director equated the Petitioner's 
diploma to a "Certificado de Conclusao de Curso Sequencial" that is issued for the completion of 
individual courses potentially leading to a degree. However, the Diploma provided by the Petitioner 
4 We consider EDGE to be a reliable source ofinfonnation 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. LLCv. Holder. No. 2:12-CV-00127-RWS, 2013 WL 1943431 (N.D. 
Ga. May 18, 2013). See https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/brazil for information regarding the education system in 
Brazil and credential equivalencies (last accessed May 25, 2023). 
3 
indicates that it was issued to confer a "titulo de Bacharel em Comunicacao Social." In addition to 
the Diploma, the Petitioner provided a transcript showing the completion of 194 credit hours between 
1994 and 1999. The evaluation from Morningside Evaluations supports the Petitioner's contentions 
that the course work completed during her nearly 5 years of study culminated in the qualification for 
her degree in 2002 and is the equivalent of a four-year Bachelor of Science degree in the United States. 
Therefore, we withdraw the Director's determination as it relates to the Petitioner's undergraduate 
degree. 
Since the Petitioner has established that she has the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree she must 
also establish five years of progressive experience in her field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). As evidence 
to satisfy this requirement, the Petitioner provided her resume and multiple letters of support. A letter 
from C-M-5 of states that the Petitioner worked in the advisory and 
communication department between August 1999 and October 2003. The Petitioner's diploma was 
issued in 2002 and only work experience after the date of qualification may be considered relevant to 
this requirement. A second letter from M-C- states that the Petitioner worked as a consultant for the 
between July 2015 and July 2018. However, this letter did 
not contain a description of the Petitioner's duties or provide sufficient insight into the work she 
completed to demonstrate that it relates to her degree in communications or constitutes progressive 
experience in her specialty. A letter from H-F-T- states he also worked with the Petitioner at and 
describes a few of her projects but did not provide sufficient detail of her day-to-day duties or 
demonstrate how the projects she worked on relate to her field of study. The remaining letters of 
support are not from current or former employers but colleagues or friends familiar with the 
Petitioner's work history. As these letters are not from current or past employers, they do not meet 
the regulatory requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) and are not sufficient to establish the 
Petitioner's progressive experience in her field. The Petitioner makes a passing reference on appeal 
to her entrepreneurial journey over the course of 20 years but fails to provide any supporting sections 
of law or regulation that would stand for the premise that the Petitioner may submit their own letter of 
support regarding their past employment to meet this regulatory requirement. See Giday v. INS, 113 
F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ( declining to address a "passing reference" to an argument in a brief 
that did not provide legal support). Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established the regulatory 
requirements to be considered a professional with an advanced degree. 
B. Exceptional Ability 
The Director further provided an analysis of the six criteria necessary to be considered an individual 
of exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). The Petitioner does not claim to be an 
individual of exceptional ability on appeal or rebut the findings of the Director as it relates to the 
regulatory requirements above. Therefore, we deem the matter waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 
28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 
2012)). 
III. CONCLUSION 
5 We use initials to protect the privacy of individuals. 
4 
The Petitioner has not established that she satisfies the regulatory requirements for classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. As 
the above stated grounds are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not reach, and therefore 
reserve, the Petitioner's arguments related to her suitability for a national interest waiver under the 
Dhanasar framework. 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where the applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5