remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 2 3 6 716 80 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 4, 2023 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business manager, 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. 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 concluding whether 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. However, in a prior request for evidence, the Director stated that the Petitioner 
"submitted evidence with Form I-140 which establishes the [Petitioner] holds [a] Bachelor's Degree 
in Meehan ical Engineering or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty and thus qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree ." 
While we conduct de novo review on appeal , Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 , 537 n.2 
(AAO 2015), 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. 
We note that, although the record contains an evaluation of the Petitioner's academic credentials, the 
evaluation addresses the Petitioner's foreign degree in mechanical engineering, 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 establishing that the noncitizenhas a degree 
or similar award from a college, university or other institution of learning "relating to the area of 
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, physics, materials science, and engineering. We also note that the evaluation addresses a 
post-graduate certificate in business administration the Petitioner received. However, the regulations 
contemplate a singular "United States baccalaureate degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by 
at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty" to be equivalent to an advanced degree, 
not a bachelor's degree in an unrelated field combined with a post-graduate ce1iificate in a related 
field, followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (k)(2). 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to determine if the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for the underlying classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
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 Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2