remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Networks

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 02, 2024 In Re: 30556542 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a computer network and maintenance technician, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
and/or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 the Petitioner merited a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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 establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 3, 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. 
IT. EB-2 IMMIGRANT CLASSIFICATION 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Petitioner claimed eligibility for the EB-2 classification only as an individual of exceptional 
ability. However, when issuing their request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the Petitioner 
had established eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, thus making a 
determination of whether he qualified as an individual of exceptional ability unnecessary. Per the 
discussion below, we disagree with the Director's statement in the RFE, and remand this matter for 
their reconsideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification. 4 
In their RFE, the Director referenced the Petitioner's "academic record from 
where he obtained his bachelor's degree in computer networks and master's degree (incomplete) in 
Business Administration" as establishing his eligibility for the EB2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. But there are multiple errors of fact in this statement, 
beginning with the names of the institutions where the Petitioner studied. Also, the certified translation 
of the Petitioner's diploma from the includes an error that the Director 
incorporated in their statement, translating the title of the awarded degree program, "Curso Superior 
de Formacao Especifica," to "Bachelor's Degree." Although the Petitioner repeats this claim 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
3 Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an 
unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in 
nature). 
4 As the Director did not include a dete1mination of the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification in their decision, 
there is no final decision on this issue for us to withdraw. 
2 
throughout his petition, the credential evaluation submitted by the Petitioner states that the Petitioner 
earned a "Technologist Diploma for the completion of the Higher Course of Specific Training in 
Computer Networks" from this institution, not a bachelor's degree. Further, the evaluation does not 
suggest that this degree is equivalent to a bachelor's degree, whether issued from an institution in 
Brazil or the United States. 
Turning to the "master's degree (incomplete) in Business Administration," we note that while the 
Petitioner completed Part 11 of Form ETA-750B, Application for Alien Employment Certification, 
with this information, he also included a lengthy explanation of why he never received a diploma from 
the after nearly completing his studies. In addition, the transcripts from this 
institution indicate that the Petitioner's studies were in a latu sensu program, not a master's degree 
program. 5 Further, the credential evaluation makes no mention of his studies in this program when 
evaluating his education. The Petitioner has not established that almost completing a latu sensu 
program is equivalent to holding an advanced degree from an accredited college or university in the 
United States. As the record does not show that the Petitioner holds a U.S. degree above baccalaureate, 
or a foreign equivalent degree, the Director erred in stating that he is eligible as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree based solely on the evidence of his education. 
As noted above, a petitioner may also establish eligibility as an advanced degree professional through 
evidence of a United States bachelor's degree, or a foreign equivalent degree, and five years of 
progressive, post-baccalaureate work experience in their field. Here, while the credential evaluation 
ultimately concludes that the Petitioner has the U.S. equivalent of a Master of Science degree in 
information systems, it does so by combining education that has not been shown to be equivalent to a 
bachelor's degree with multiple years of work experience. We may reject or give lesser evidentiary 
weight to credential evaluations inconsistent with the record or "in any way questionable." Matter of 
Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). The three-for-one formula cited by the 
evaluation applies only to H-lB nonimmigrant visa petitions, not to immigrant petitions. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) (describing a U.S. baccalaureate equivalency for H-IB purposes). The record 
therefore does not establish the Petitioner's possession of a baccalaureate equivalency, and he cannot 
qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
B. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner based his claim of eligibility for the EB-2 classification on his 
qualification as an individual of exceptional ability, and submitted evidence under all six of the 
evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). On remand, the Director should review the 
evidence submitted to determine if the Petitioner meets at least three of those criteria, and if so conduct 
a final merits determination of the totality of the record to determine whether the Petitioner has 
established that he is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in his field. Because the Director's previous RFE did not address the insufficiencies in 
5 We reviewed the AACRAO EDGE database to determine whether the Petitioner's foreign education is comparable to 
any U.S. degree. The AACRAO EDGE database is a reliable resource concerning the U.S. equivalencies of foreign 
education. See generally American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, Electronic Database for 
Global Education, https://www.aacrao.org/edge. It contains extensive information regarding the Brazilian educational 
system, including latu sensu certificates. The database states that lato sensu programs are for professional development 
and specialization, and lead toward professional certificates instead of academic graduate degrees. 
3 
the evidence initially presented under these evidentiary criteria and therefore did not provide the 
Petitioner an opportunity to respond, they should issue a new RFE if they determine that the record 
does not show that the Petitioner meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The Petitioner proposes to offer information technology (TT) consulting services through his own 
company, I I located in Florida. His endeavor would involve owning and managing 
this business, which will provide services such as IT management consulting, server deployment, 
network infrastrncture installation, cybersecurity, and training services for technical support. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, concerning the substantial merit and national 
importance of the proposed endeavor, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to 
undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, 
entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining whether the 
proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 
26 T&N Dec. at 889. 
In their decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial 
merit. Based upon the business plan for I I and other supporting documentation, we 
conclude that the proposed endeavor is of substantial merit in the areas of business and technology. 
For the second part of their decision regarding the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
However, the Director's analysis of national importance relies upon elements from the third prong of 
the framework, in which we determine whether, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. For example, immediately 
after concluding that the proposed endeavor does not national importance, the Director states that the 
Petitioner has not established that "it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification," and goes on to list several third prong 
factors from the precedent decision. 
Later in the decision, under the bulleted heading "National importance," the Director initially (and 
correctly) explains that the focus of a national importance analysis under the Dhanasar framework is 
the specific proposed endeavor, not the field or industry in which a petitioner proposes to work. 
However, they then go on to conduct an analysis of whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor, which falls under the second prong of the framework. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow the Petitioner a 
fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 T&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994)(finding that a 
decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Here, the Director has not explained the 
reasons behind their conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is not of national importance. 
4 
In addition, we note that when issuing their RFE, the Director stated that the evidence of the 
Petitioner's education and experience was sufficient to establish that he was well positioned to advance 
his endeavor, and thus met the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. However, the Director then 
reached the opposite conclusion in their decision. 
On remand, the Director should evaluate the record, including the materials provided with the appeal, 
and provide a clear and coherent analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver 
per the Dhanasar analytical framework and related USCIS policy guidance. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5