remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Architectural Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12848375 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL Y 14, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an architectural engineer, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 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 Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the 
Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. Specifically, the Director stated, "[b ]ased on the evidence 
submitted[,] the [P]etitioner possesses a [m]aster's degree in architecture. Therefore, the [P]etitioner 
has establishes [sic] she is a member of the profession [sic] holding an advance [sic] degree." For the 
reasons discussed below, we withdraw that conclusion. 
In relevant part, the record contains a copy of a "diploma with honours" for "the qualification of a 
teacher of visual art and drawin= majoring in 'visual art and drawing"' awarded to the Petitioner in 
2000 by thel _ I College, and an accompanying English translation. The 
translation indicates that the diploma is "a state document confirming secondary vocational education" 
at a "basic level." The record also contains a copy of a "diploma with honours" for "the qualification 
of an architect majoring in 'architecture"' awarded to the Petitioner in 2006 by the I I 
Architectural Institute, and an accompanying English translation. Similar to the other translation, this 
translation indicates that the 2006 diploma is "a state document confirming higher education." 
However, the 2006 diploma does not indicate the corresponding academic level. The record also 
contains a copy of a "certificate of short-term professional advancement in the course 'Construction 
Design Manager"' issued to the Petitioner in 2014 by thd !Management School, and a similar 
certificate issued by thel !Institute of Architecture to the Petitioner for "short-term training" 
she underwent between "March 22, 2017[,] until April 21, 2017," both with accompanying 
translations. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an opinion letter 
from the president of I I which states, in relevant part, "[b ]ased on provided to 
me documents and information, [the Petitioner] received her advanced degree in [a]rchitecture from 
one of the most preeminent educational institutions in Russia, thel I Institute of Architecture 
(State Academy) in 2006." 1 The opinion letter does not indicate that the Petitioner's 2000 diploma is 
equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, nor is the letter "a credentials evaluation performed by an 
independent credentials evaluator who has provided a credible, logical, and well-documented case for 
such an equivalency determination." See 6 USCIS Policy Manual E.9, https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. The opinion letter also is not, in the alternative, "a comparable evaluation performed by a 
school official who has the authority to make such determinations and is acting in his or her official 
capacity with the educational institution." 2 See id. 
Accordingly, the record does not establish either that the Petitioner's 2000 degree is equivalent to a 
U.S. bachelor's degree or that the Petitioner's 2006 degree is equivalent to an advanced U.S. degree, 
in order for the Petitioner to qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) ( defining "advanced degree" for the purposes of a Form I-140, Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Worker, as "any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of a baccalaureate" ( emphasis added)). Specifically, the record does not 
support the Director's conclusion that "the [P]etitioner possesses a [m]aster's degree in architecture." 
While we conduct de nova review on appeal, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case 
because the Director's decision is insufficient for review. As presently constituted, the record does 
not establish whether the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 3 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to conduct a final merits determination of 
the advanced degree issue and enter a new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence 
considered pertinent to the new determination and any other issue. As such, we express no opinion 
regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for farther 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
1 Also in response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter in which she informs that "from October 2017 to January 
2020, I rendered my volunteer services to~--~----~[sic]." The prior working relationship between the 
Petitioner and the opinion letter author precludes the letter rrom being an independent evaluation of her credentials. 
2 In any event, "[a]ny educational equivalency evaluation performed by a credentials evaluator or school official is solely 
advisory in nature; the final detennination continues to rest with the [adjudicating USCTS] officer." See 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual E.9, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
3 We further note that the record-both at the time of filing and at the time of the Director's decision-does not contain 
sufficient information regarding the proposed endeavor the Petitioner would pursue in the United States to meaningfully 
analyze whether any of the Dhanasar prongs have been satisfied. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889-90 
(AAO 2016); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1) (requiring a petitioner to "establish that he or she is eligible for the requested 
benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and ... continue to be eligible through adjudication"). 
2