remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Economics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21581977 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 5, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification, 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 had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that he is eligible for a national 
interest waiver. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon de nova 
review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further review of the 
record and issuance of a new decision. 
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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual 's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
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). Alternatively, a petitioner may present 
"[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer( s) 
showing that the [individual] has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in 
the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it 
would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Eligibility for the Requested Classification 
As stated above, the first step to establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver is demonstrating 
qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or 
an individual of exceptional ability. The Petitioner does not assert nor does the record establish that 
he is an individual of exceptional ability. The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified for the 
underlying visa classification because he "submitted evidence of an advanced degree." For the reasons 
discussed below, we withdraw the Director's conclusion on this issue. 
1. Education Credentials 
The Petitioner submitted documentation relating to his 201 7 master of economics and business degree 
from I I and his 2016 bachelor of mechanics degree 
from __________________ which the Petitioner asserts he obtained in 
Kazakhstan. Some of the submitted evidence appears to be education credentials that are foreign 
language documents without English translations, while other documents - such as the Petitioner's 
course transcripts, appear to be English language translations of foreign language documents. The 
Petitioner has not submitted evidence sufficient to show that this documentation meets the evidentiary 
requirements for "official academic record[ s ]" in order to demonstrate that the Petitioner's eligibility 
for the EB-2 classification. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). 
Further, "[aa ]ny document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language 
translation." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). The translator must certify that the English language translation 
is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language 
into English. Id. The Petitioner has not provided the requisite full, certified English language 
translations of the foreign language documents submitted in support of the petition. With any request 
for additional evidence (RFE) or notice of intent to deny (NOID), the Director should request a 
complete copy of the Petitioner's official academic records, accompanied by full and complete English 
translations to support the Petitioner's assertions regarding the U.S. equivalency of his foreign 
academic credentials. 
The Petitioner also submitted a 2021 education credential evaluation by [ G-] Evaluation Services 
which concludes that the Petitioner's foreign master's degree is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 
in economics from a regionally accredited educational institution in the United States, and that the 
Petitioner's admission to this degree program was based on his bachelor's degree. G- also opines that 
the Petitioner's foreign bachelor's degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in mechanics from 
a regionally accredited educational institution in the United States, and that his admission to this degree 
program was based on his high school diploma. 
However, the conclusory determinations reached by G- lack specificity and detail and are not 
supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the manner in which it concluded that 
the Petitioner's foreign master's and bachelor's degrees are respectively equivalent to a United States 
advanced degree and a United States baccalaureate degree. Other than providing a list of references, 
such as the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers' (AACRAO) 1992 
report entitled, The Soviet System of Education, 4 a link to Kazakhstan's country overview in AACRAO' s 
Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) database,5 and the U.S. Department of Labor's 2000 
report entitled, Occupational Projections and Training Data, G- does not discuss the relevant research, 
studies, or authoritative publications it relied upon as part of its review of the Petitioner's education 
credentials, nor did it explain how the reviewed materials served as the foundation for its opinions. 
Additionally, considering the content of the Petitioner's education credentials in the record, the 
information provided through EDGE does not support G-'s conclusions. For instance, the educational 
background noted in the documentation for entry into the Petitioner's master's degree program is a 
"diploma in higher education." While EDGE provides detailed credential information for academic 
degrees in Kazakhstan, a credential entitled "diploma in higher education" is not among them. 
Similarly, G- indicates in the evaluation that the basis for the Petitioner's admission into his bachelor's 
degree program was a "high school diploma," but the information provided in EDGE does not indicate 
that a "high school diploma" is an education credential used to admit students into bachelor's degree 
programs within the context of the Kazakhstan education system. 6 
As discussed, some of the education credential documentation submitted in support of the petition 
appears to be English translations of foreign language documents, not an official academic record of 
the Petitioner's foreign education. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). G- avers that it based its evaluations "on 
the original documents issued in Kazakh, Russian and English by the institutions attended," but 
without more, G-' s conclusory evaluation and the submitted education credentials do not substantiate 
that the basis for the Petitioner's admission to his foreign master's degree program was the foreign 
degree equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
Additionally, open-source information does not confirm that the Petitioner's master's degree program 
atl was accredited by Kazakhstan's Independent Agency for Quality Assurance in Education 
(IQAA). 7 According to IQAA's website, was an accredited institution of higher learning in 
4 AACRAO is described on its website as "a nonprofit, voluntary, professional association of more than 11,000 higher 
education admissions and registration professionals who represent more than 2,600 institutions in over 40 countries." 
http://www.aacrao.org/who-we-are. 
5 EDGE is described on its registration page as "a web-based resource for the evaluation of foreign educational credentials." 
http://edge.aacrao.org/info.php. 
6 https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/kazakhstan. 
7 TQAA is identified in EDGE as a "key resource" in making Kazakhstan-based education credential detenninations. 
4 
Kazakhstan from May 2017 through May 2020, and was accredited to offer ten master's degree 
programs during that time period. 8 However, the Petitioner's program of study, economics and 
business, was not among them. Further, media articles reported that in 2020 Kazakhstan's Ministry 
of Education revoked 's license to operate as a University due to "'ggross violations' in 
admissions - accepting students that hadn't taken the correct exams, hadn't provided originals of the 
ENT (nationwide university admission exam) certificate, and so on - as well as in teaching, where it 
was found that published timetables for classes were not being adhered to." 9 Notably, G-'s 2021 
evaluation does not address whether the Petitioner's master's degree program was accredited in 
Kazakhstan when the degree was conferred, which is concerning given G-' s determination that the 
Petitioner's foreign master's degree in economics and business is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree . . 
m economics. 
We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign education as an advisory opinion. 
Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we may discount or give less weight to 
that evaluation. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the Director should consider whether G-'s evaluation 
of the Petitioner's foreign education credentials is probative evidence in this matter. In evaluating the 
evidence, the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter 
ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Based on the foregoing, the Director should consider anew whether the record establishes that the 
Petitioner's master's degree qualifies as a foreign equivalent degree above that of a U.S. baccalaureate 
degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
The Director should also determine whether the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that he holds 
the foreign degree equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. If the Director concludes that the Petitioner 
has provided independent, objective evidence to establish receipt of such a degree, he should then 
determine whether the Petitioner has submitted employment letters which establish "at least five years 
of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty." The definition of advanced degree at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) requires the experience to be "in the specialty." The Petitioner must 
demonstrate such experience at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
2. Inconsistent Work Experience 
As discussed, a petitioner may present "evidence in the form of letters from current or former 
employer(s) showing that the [individual] has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate 
experience in the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.S(g)(l), provides in pertinent part that "[e]vidence relating to qualifying experience or training 
shall be in the form of letter( s) from current or former employer( s) or trainer( s) and shall include the 
name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien 
or of the training received." The Petitioner has not submitted evidence, such as letters from current or 
According to its website, TQAA is a "non-governmental institution [established] in 2008 and is the first Kazakhstani non­
profit, non-governmental organization in the field of assessing the quality of educational organizations and educational 
programs. See https://iqaa.kz/o-nas/iqaa. 
8 See generally https://iqaa.kz/en/higher-education/register-of-decisions-and-reports. 
9 See https://emmasabzalieva.com/2020/03/02/going-going-gone-kazakhstans-innovation-university-is-shut-down/. 
5 
former employer(s), to establish that he possessed at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate 
experience in the specialty at the time of filing the petition. The Director should consider requesting 
such evidence. 
While not discussed by the Director, we also observe that the Petitioner has presented inconsistent 
evidence about his work experience in support of the petition and in his nonimmigrant visa application 
filed with the United States Department of State (DOS). 10 The Beneficiary applied for a nonimmigrant 
visa in 2019 and entered the United States utilizing that nonimmigrant visa in 2020. 11 The application 
for that visa requested the Beneficiary's work history for the previous five years, which he provided 
as follows: 
Dates of Employer Job Title and Duties 
Employment 
06/2019 to 12/2019 I [Owner] I have a business with my 
Burgers partner, we have two locations. 
04/2018 to 05/2019 
I 
Supervisor of marketing department. 
Promoting products, ideas and missions 
of the enterprise, finding new 
customers .... 
06/2016 to 0212018 
I 
Economist. Analyzing market trends, 
advising businesses on economic 
decisions. 
In contrast, the Petitioner submitted an Application for Alien Employment Certification (ETA 750) 
Part B, which he signed in 2020 under penalty of perjury, and reflects the Petitioner's work history, 
as follows: 12 
Dates of Employer Job Title and Duties 
Employment 
01/2018 to 12/2019 I Marketing manager 
06/2017 to 01/2018 I Bank Credit Manager 
01/2016 to 06/2017 Visit Owner 
Importantly, the Petitioner's business plan in the petition confirms his intentions to operate a business 
"offering a range of freight trucking services to customers across the United States." According to 
his personal statement, he is a "successful business owner [who] worked as the head of marketing, 
operations manager, truck driver, and dispatcher, and completed other various functions in the freight 
10 The Petitioner signed Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, certifying under penalty of perjmy that the visa 
petition and the submitted evidence are all true and correct. See section 287(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(b); see also 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). 
11 DOS clearly advises visa applicants that, by submitting applications, they certify under penalty ofperjmy that they have 
read and understood the applications' questions and that their answers are true and correct to the best of their knowledge 
and beliefs. See, e.g., DOS, "DS-160: Frequently Asked Questions," https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us­
visas/visa-information-resources/forms/ ds-160-online-nonimmigrant-visa-application/ ds-160- faqs.html. 
12 The Petitioner also submitted a resume, a statement of background, and a business plan which provide varying accounts 
of his work history, which for the sake of brevity we will not discuss in detail. 
6 
trucking industry" in Kazakhstan . However, the Petitioner omitted mention of being employed within 
the freight trucking industry in his nonimmigrant visa application and presented a work history in 
support of that application which substantially differs from the information provided in the instant 
petition. 
Here, the Petitioner has submitted inconsistent evidence purporting to show his qualifying work 
experience and of his position to advance his proposed endeavor, which is material to meeting the 
requirements of the EB-2 classification and eligibility under the Dhanasar analytical framework. The 
Petitioner must resolve the above inconsistencies with independent , objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material 
inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted 
in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
B. Dhanasar Analysis 
Regarding the Petitioner's remaining claims of eligibility under the Dhana sar analysis, we agree with 
the Director 's ultimate conclusions . For example, regarding the national importance portion of the 
first prong, although the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to continue working in his field 
in the United States, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In Dhana sar, 
we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national 
importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Similarly, the record in 
this matter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond his future employer(s) and clients such that it would impact U.S. interests or the financial 
industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. In addition, he has not 
demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we are remanding the petition for the Director to consider anew 
whether the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification , the threshold determination in national interest 
waiver cases. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new 
determination. 
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. 
7