dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Tourism And Hospitality Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 10, 2023 In Re: 27893962 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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, 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, concluding that the record does not 
establish the Petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2) of 
the Act. The regulations define an advanced degree as either "any United States academic or 
professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a baccalaureate" or a "United States 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The regulations further specify that, in order to 
establish the equivalent of an advanced degree by a combination of education and experience, a 
petition must be accompanied by an official academic record showing that the individual has a United 
States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters from 
current or former employers showing that the individual has at least five years of progressive post­
baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). 
The Director found that the record does not establish that the Petitioner's "foreign three-year 
baccalaureate degree" is equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree and, thus, that she does not qualify 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree when combining that degree with 
experience. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The Director acknowledged that the record contains an 
evaluation of the Petitioner's education and work experience that opines the Petitioner has the 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in tourism and hospitality management. However, the Director 
noted that USCIS may disregard questionable advisory opinions, citing Matter ofCaron Int 'l, 19 I&N 
Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988); Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter 
o_f Treasure Craft o_f Cal[f, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). The Petitioner did not assert, 
and the record does not support the conclusion, that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference 
classification in the alternative as an individual of exceptional ability. See section 203(b )(2) of the 
Act. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that the academic evaluation in the record establishes that the 
Petitioner's foreign degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, and that a combination of her 
degree and her work experience qualifies her for classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. 
The record contains a two-page document titled "Evaluation of Education and Work Experience," 
from United States Credential Evaluations. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements 
submitted by a petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. However, we 
may give an opinion less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in 
any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding 
an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id.; see also Matter o_f V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 
2008) ("[E]xpert opinion testimony, while undoubtedly a form of evidence, does not purport to be 
evidence as to 'fact' but rather is admissible only if 'it will assist the trier of fact to understand the 
evidence or to determine a fact in issue."'). 
Although, as the Director acknowledged, the evaluation opines that the Petitioner "has an equivalent 
of a U.S. Bachelor's Degree in Tourism and Hospitality Management," the evaluation directly 
contradicts that opinion. The evaluation summarizes other documents in the record that indicate the 
Petitioner completed a three-year "Bachelor's Degree in Tourism" program at the UniversidadeD 
I I in Brazil, in 2003. The evaluation farther states that the American Association of 
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) EDGE database "specifically lists the 
Bachelor degree of three years of duration from Brazil to represent attainment of a level of education 
comparable to three years ofundergraduate study in the United States" (emphasis added). We farther 
note that, in a second place, the two-page evaluation states, "U.S. Equivalent Degree(s): 3 Years of 
Undergraduate Programs - Major in Tourism and Hospitality Management," not that the petitioner's 
degree is equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree. 
The academic evaluation's acknowledgement that the AACRAO EDGE database indicates the 
Petitioner's degree is "comparable to three years of undergraduate study in the United States," rather 
than being comparable to completing a United States baccalaureate degree program, along with the 
second statement that the equivalent degree is "3 Years of Undergraduate Programs," rather than the 
completion of a baccalaureate program, directly contradict the evaluator's opinion that the Petitioner's 
foreign, three-year degree is the "equivalent of a U.S. Bachelor's Degree in Tourism and Hospitality 
Management." Whether the degree in question is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree is material 
2 
because it is essential to determining whether the Petitioner may qualify as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree by virtue of a combination of that degree and her experience in the 
specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Given the academic evaluation's directly contradicting 
information regarding the U.S. academic level to which her foreign, three-year degree is equivalent, 
and given the materiality of that determination, the academic evaluation bears minimal probative 
value. See Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 
502 n.2. 
Setting aside the academic evaluation that bears minimal probative value for the reasons discussed 
above, the record does not otherwise establish that the Petitioner has earned at least a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign degree equivalent to at least a U.S. baccalaureate degree; therefore, 
she does not meet the minimum academic threshold for qualification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree through a combination of education and experience. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). 
In summation, the record does not establish the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, and the Petitioner does not assert, and the record does not support the 
conclusion, that she qualifies in the alternative as an individual of exceptional ability. See section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the criteria set 
forth in the precedent decision Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 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 I&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification either 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative, 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. 
3