dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Tourism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 20, 2023 In Re: 28311550 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a travel advisor, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 qualifies for the underlying visa classification or merits a discretionary 
waiver of the job offer requirement "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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa'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. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
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 listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii).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 
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. 
whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.3 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner 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, 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 discretion4, 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. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to be amanager and travel advisor for her tourism business.I I 
I I With respect to the underlying EB-2 classification, the Petitioner initially submitted evidence 
with the petition to meet five of the six criteria of evidence for exceptional ability. The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner met one criterion, Iicense or certification of the profession or occupation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
In denying the petition, the Director found the Petitioner did not meet the criteria for academic record 
related to the exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), commanded a salary demonstrating 
exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D), membership in a professional association at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E), or recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the field 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). The Director further found that the Petitioner did not merit a 
discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts being an individual of exceptional ability by satisfying the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), and 
that she provided sufficient evidence for the national interest waiver. The Petitioner does not address 
or contest on appeal the Director's finding that she does not meet the criterion that she commanded a 
salary demonstrating her exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). Accordingly, we 
deem this ground to be waived. 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)). 
After reviewing the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated satisfying 
at least three of the six initial evidentiary criteria and is not otherwise eligible for the requested benefit.5 
3 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted 
and then, if it satisfies the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual , supra at F.5(B)(2). 
4 See also Poursina v. USClS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
5 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
An official academic record showing that the [noncitizen] 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 found that the record does not support the criterion since the Petitioner's bachelor of 
economics from University of Science and Technology! lis not related to the Petitioner's area 
of exceptional ability, travel advisor for a tourism business. The Petitioner argues on appeal that her 
degree in economics has a specialization in international economics and trade, which "is relevant to 
the [Petitioner's] proposed endeavor" and has provided her with "the skills and knowledge that will 
be instrumental in implementing the proposed endeavor." She further argues, "The coursework 
required by University of Science and Technolog~ lin the Economics program is substantially 
equivalent to the required coursework [sic] leading to a baccalaureate [sic] degree from an accredited 
institution of higher learning in the United States." 
We do not agree with the Petitioner's argument. The regulations require that the academic record 
show that the Petitioner has adegree related to the area of her exceptional ability. The record includes 
the Petitioner's degree, an academic course transcript, and an academic evaluation. A review of her 
academic course transcript indicates the Petitioner's coursework relates to economics and international 
economics and trade. The Petitioner has not indicated which of these courses relate to tourism, her 
claimed area of exceptional ability. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance 
of the evidence that her degree in economics satisfies the plain language of the criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
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 degree or foreign equivalent for entry into the occupation. 
To meet the criterion, the Petitioner relies on membership documentation for Global Business Travel 
Association, including undated receipts indicating her "government direct membership", online print 
outs of website links, and a paragraph summary for Global Business Travel Association. The Director 
found that the Petitioner did not submit evidence showing that Global Business Travel Association is 
a professional association and that paying an annual dues is not sufficient to show membership in a 
professional association. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that Director erred in the decision and that 
the evidence in the record establishes that this criterion has been met. 
We agree with the Director that the record does not show that Global Business Travel Association is 
a professional association as required under the criterion. The summary submitted indicates that 
Global Business Travel Association "represents the business travel industry" and its membership 
"includes business travel professionals." However, the record does not show Global Business Travel 
Association requires that its membership body be comprised of individuals who have earned a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent, or that the organization otherwise constitutes a 
professional association. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her membership in a 
professional association under this criterion. 
3 
The record does not satisfy at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Although the 
Petitioner claims el igibi I ity for an additional criterion on appeal, relating to recognition for 
achievements and significant contributions to the field at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), we need not 
reach this additional ground. Therefore, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 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 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). 
Since the Petitioner has not established that she meets at least three of the 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 she 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. 
The Petitioner has not established her 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 she meets all three of the prongs under the 
Dhanasar analytical framework, we reserve our opinion regarding these issues. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25-26; see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4