remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Business Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22644494 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 31, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a general operations manager, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative, as an individual of 
exceptional ability, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, noting that "[ a ]fter the [P]etitioner has 
established ... eligibility for second preference classification under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the [ Act], 
[U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] may grant a national interest waiver if the [P]etitioner 
demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that [the criteria established in Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), have been satisfied]." The Director proceeded to conduct a Dhanasar 
analysis without first concludingwhether the Petitioner qualifies for a second preference classification 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative, as an individual of 
exceptional ability. 1 
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 or, in the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability. See section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 
We note that, although the record contains an evaluation of the Petitioner's academic credentials, the 
evaluation addresses the Petitioner's foreign degree in social communication, a specialty that appears 
to be dissimilar to business administration, the focus of the proposed endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2) (requiring a qualifying degree and experience to be "in the specialty"); see also 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(k)(3 )(ii)(A) (requiring an official academic record establishingthatthe noncitizenhas a degree 
or similar award from a college, university or other institution of learning "relating to the area of 
1 Similarly, in a prior request for evidence, the Directornoted that"[i]n order to establish eligibility, the [P]etitionermust 
establish that. .. [she] qualifies for the requested classification; and [a ]n exemption from the requirement of a job offer, 
and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States." However, the Director did not comment 
on whether the Petitioner qualifies fortherequested classification. 
exceptional ability" to satisfy that criterion). Specifically, the English translation of the Petitioner's 
academic transcript lists many courses unrelated to business administration, including courses in art, 
language, philosophy, anthropology, and culture. 
Additionally, even to the extent that the Petitioner's degree is in the specialty, the record contains 
unresolved discrepancies regarding the Petitioner's prior employment. The academic evaluation notes 
that, "[ff]rom November 2009 to February 2014, [the Petitioner] worked as Chief Executive Officer of 
the company" she founded; however, the evaluation also states that she simultaneously "was employed 
as Operations manager at ... a company selling shoes and clothes in Brazil ... [ ]rom January 2012 
to October2018." The Petitioner's concurrentemploymentfromJanuary2012 to February 2014 raises 
questions regarding whether she worked either position on a full-time basis. Furthermore, the 
Petitioner's employment history prior to earning her degree in July 2011 is inapplicable to qualifying 
employment under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2), which requires a qualifying degree, "followed by at least 
five years of progressive experience in the specialty" ( emphasis added). In tum, the record contains a 
letter from an individual who identifies his position only as "human resources" for the company for 
which the Petitioner worked from2012to 2018. In contrast to the academic evaluation, the letter from 
the Petitioner's prior employer indicates that the Petitioner's job title was "Administrative Advisory" 
from January 20, 2012, through August 30, 2014, and herjob title was "Director Operations Manager)" 
from September 1, 2014, through October 30, 2018," not that she "was employed as Operations 
manager ... [f]rom January 2012 to October 2018." Moreover, the letter from the Petitioner's prior 
employer merely asserts that the Petitioner "has worked in this Company" during the respective 
periods, without specifying whether she worked on a full-time basis. The Director did not address 
these deficiencies in the record regarding the Petitioner's work experience. 2 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to dete1mine if the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for the underlying classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
or, in the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability, and to 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 further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
2 The Petitionermustresolve discrepancies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&NDec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
2