remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 21, 2025 In Re: 34886554 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 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, concluding that the record did not 
establish that that the proposed endeavor was of national importance or that it would be beneficial to 
waive the requirements of a job offer. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required for the specialty, the non-citizen must possess a U.S. doctorate or a 
foreign equivalent degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver pettt10ns. Dhanasar states that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner, who claims eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional qualifies for the requested visa classification. However, the Director 
determined that the record did not establish his eligibility under the first and third prongs of the 
Dhanasar framework, and therefore found him ineligible for a waiver of the job offer requirement. 
For the reasons discussed below, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter to 
the Director for entry of a new decision. 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advance Degree 
We withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner qualifies for the requested visa 
classification. 
A petition for an advanced degree professional must include evidence that a petitioner possesses a 
"United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of 
baccalaureate." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). In order to show that a petitioner holds a qualifying advanced 
degree, the petition must be accompanied by "[ a ]n official academic record showing that the 
[individual] has a United States advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Moreover, any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full 
English language translation, and a certification from the translator that the English language 
translation is complete and accurate and that they are competent to translate from the foreign language 
into English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). 
To demonstrate that he has the claimed degree, the Petitioner submitted a copy of his original master's 
degree diploma in Civil Engineering, and the accompanying academic transcript, along with 
translations for all the aforementioned documents. The certificate of translation printed on the 
documents states that the translator is a "Certified English Translator," but does not state that the 
translator is competent to translate the document from the foreign language into English. As the 
academic records were not translated in accordance with the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3), we are unable to meaningfully determine whether the documents support the claim. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85. 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in concluding 
that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
Therefore, we withdraw the Director's determination and will remand the matter to the Director for 
further consideration. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a 
model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the 
interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
In the request for evidence (RFE), the Director found that the Petitioner demonstrated that he was well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor based on his past publications, education, and peer 
reviewed activities. The Director confirmed this finding in the decision. We disagree with the 
Director's conclusion. 
As outlined above, the Petitioner has failed to submit a properly certified translation of his academic 
record, as required by 8 CFR 103 .2(b )(3). As such, the record does not establish whether his education 
supports his claim to be well positioned. 
Moreover, the Petitioner states that for his proposed endeavor he intends "to pursue a position as a 
postdoctoral researcher," and is "most interested in pursuing this position with the University of South 
Carolina." Although the Petitioner has been pursuing his doctorate since 2016, the record indicates 
that he has not yet completed the degree, and it is uncertain when the degree will be completed. 
Furthermore, he has not provided any evidence that he has any interest from the University of South 
Carolina or any other institutions. It is unclear how the Petitioner intends to be a postdoctoral 
researcher without the requisite degree. A petitioner must resolve discrepancies in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). The Petitioner further claims that he is "actively engaged in discussions with ... various 
U.S. institutions" indicating a "strong interest in the kind ofresearch [he] specialize[ s] in" and hopes 
to secure an offer of employment soon. However, again he has not presented evidence of discussions 
regarding his potential future employment, or any other significant evidence of progress towards 
achieving his proposed endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. Additionally, he has not presented 
any evidence showing he has support, such as research funding, from relevant entities claiming interest 
in his work, or evidence of any institution's interest generally. Id. As such, it is unclear how the 
Petitioner is well-positioned to pursue the proposed endeavor. 
Based on the above analysis, we are withdrawing the Director's determination that the Petitioner met 
prong two and remand the decision for the Director to analyze the evidence to resolve if the Petitioner 
is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
As the aforementioned reasons are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the other prongs of the Dhanasar 
framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to 
3 
make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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). On remand, if the Director concludes that the 
Petitioner does not meet Dhanasar 's first or third prong, the decision should address the Petitioner's 
arguments and evidence. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4