remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Environmental Protection

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 14, 2023 In Re: 28562799 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner states that she is a "highly skilled environmental protection technician/specialist." She 
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 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, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the record did 
not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we conclude that the Director did not offer a complete and accurate analysis of the submitted evidence. 
We will therefore withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision 
consistent with the analysis below. 
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. 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 I&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, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As previously indicated, the Director's decision did not offer a complete analysis or adequately explain 
the deficiencies in the evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 
786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must folly explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow 
the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
Despite concluding that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, the 
Director determined that: 1) the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, and 2) that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantional merit and national importance under the 
first prong of the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the record lacks 
sufficient evidence to support these conclusions, and we will remand this matter to allow the Petitioner 
an opportunity to address these issues. 
A Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
First, we will address the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. 2 
In order to show an individual holds an advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied by "[ a ]n 
official academic record showing that the alien has a United States advanced degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree." 3 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Alternatively, the Petitioner may present"[ a ]n official 
academic record showing that the alien has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree, and evidence in the form ofletters from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has 
at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
In the matter at hand, the Director determined that the Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree followed by 
five years of relevant work experience, thereby concluding that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 
immigrant classification. However, the record lacks sufficient evidence to support the Director's 
conclusion. Although the Petitioner states that she completed a four-year undergraduate degree prior 
to being awarded the post-graduate degree in 2018, the record does not show that her undergraduate 
degree is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. Despite providing a diploma certificate 
showing that the Petitioner was awarded the title of environmental administrator with emphasis on 
2 The Petitioner did not claim that she qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability. 
3 To qualify as a member of the professions, an individual must meet "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 into the occupation." 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2). Section 101(a)(32) of the Act states "[t]he 
term 'profession' shall include but not limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
2 
agrobusiness in 2013 from.__ ___________________________ ___. 
the record lacks sufficient evidence showing that the Petitioner was awarded this degree after 
completion of four years of undergraduate study, or a length equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter 
of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010 . Here, the Petitioner provided an expert opinion 
letter from.__ _____________________ _. stating that the above listed 
degree was earned after completion of a four-year undergraduate program that is "the equivalent of 
the U.S. degree of Bachelor of Science in Environmental Management with an Emphasis in 
Agribusiness." However, it is unclear what documents I !reviewed to determine that the 
Petitioner completed a four-year program as the record does not contain corresponding transcripts. 
Although the Petitioner also provided a credentials evaluation report which states that it was "based 
on photocopies of official academic credentials submitted byl t' the report 
is different from the expert opinion letter upon which the report~ortedly based. Namely, the 
report states that the Petitioner's attendance at the university in L___J Colombia "is equivalent to 
seven semesters of undergraduate study" and does not state that the Petitioner's degree from that 
institution resulted in four years of undergraduate work, as stated in the expert opinion letter. The 
report goes on to state that the Petitioner "continued her undergraduate study" from 201 7 to 2018 at 
the Universit ~------------~It appears the evaluator relied on a combination of 
the Petitioner's degree in 2013 as well as her more recent degree of"Specialist in Occupational Health 
Management" in 2018, together, as part of her undergraduate education. Although the evaluation 
seemingly deems the combined coursework to be "the equivalent of completion of 26 semester credit 
hours," the record contains no transcript from either institution to corroborate the assertion or to show 
how many credit hours the Petitioner earned. Nor did the Petitioner offer evidence establishing that 
26 credit hours is the equivalent of a four-year U.S. bachelor's degree. 4 We further note that credential 
evaluations are advisory and may be given less weight, particularly where, as in this instance, the 
credentials evaluation report is inconsistent with the expert opinion letter, which is seemingly based 
on the same set of credentials. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988); see also 
Matter ofSea, 19 I&N Dec. 817 (Comm'r 1988). 
Based on the evidence submitted, we cannot determine that either of the Petitioner's degrees is the 
equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Andi±: as indicated in the credentials evaluation report, the 
Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree after her course of study in 2018, then she would not have been 
able to attain at least five years of progressive post-graduate work experience by the time she filed the 
instant Form 1-140 petition in October 2021. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) (requiring that all eligibility 
requirements be met as of the date the petition is filed). 
Without further evidence, the Petitioner has not established that she meets the requirements for an 
advanced degree professional. As such, the Director's favorable conclusion must be withdrawn. On 
4 According to American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) Electronic Database 
for Global Education (EDGE). an undergraduate degree requiring at least four years of coursework and equivalent to a 
U.S. bachelor's degree is a Titulo de Licenciatura, which is awarded after 4-5 years of undergraduate study. or a Titulo de 
Profesional, which is awarded after 4-6 years of study. The Petitioner's degree ce1tificates show that she earned a Titulo 
de Administrador Ambiental con Enfasis en Agronegocios in 2013 and a Titulo de Especialista en Gerencia en Salud 
Ocupacional in 2018. 
3 
remand, the Director may ask for additional evidence and then consider such evidence in determining 
whether the Petitioner qualifies as a member ofthe professions under either ofthe regulatory requirements 
for holding an advanced degree as set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A) and (B). 
B. National Interest Waiver 
Next, we will address the Director's determination that the Petitioner's endeavor satisfies the 
substantial merit and national importance elements of the first prong under Dhanasar. The Director 
did not explain the basis for this determination but specified that the determination was made with 
respect to the Petitioner's endeavor to be an entrepreneur by "operating a firm" that provides "'risk 
assessment and mitigation services to combat pollution, radiation and environmental hazards within 
the oil and gas industry."' We note, however, that at the time of filing the Petitioner did not indicate 
an intent to own a business and operate within the context of her own firm. Rather, the Petitioner 
stated that she intends "to act as a highly skilled environmental protection technician/specialist within 
the U.S. oil industry sector." It was not until the Petitioner responded to an RFE that she first 
mentioned the intent to own and operate her own consulting firm. The RFE response also includes a 
professional plan, which further describes the altered endeavor and lists the Petitioner's role as 
"director" rather than that of a "technician/specialist." The business plan submitted with the RFE also 
lists a subordinate three-person staff who would be assigned roles within the 'Training Unit," 
"Consulting Unit," and "Administration and Marketing Unit," thus indicating that they, rather than the 
Beneficiary, would be assigned the consulting firm's operational tasks, including tasks involving risk 
mitigation within the oil and gas industry. Because the Petitioner did not list her own duties within 
the context of this altered entrepreneurial venture, it is unclear whether her role would entail any tasks 
associated with the position of a "technician/specialist" in the oil and gas industry, as was discussed 
at the time of filing. 
We further note that the work experience listed in the Petitioner's resume indicates that none of her 
previously held positions involved owning her own business, but rather showed that she was an 
employee who assumed the role of a service provider, a role that is consistent with the endeavor as 
originally described when this petition was filed. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time 
of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). 
Further, the purpose of an RFE is to elicit information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit 
sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), 
103.2(b)(8), 103.2(b)(l2). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to 
make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 
176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
Accordingly, the materially changed proposed endeavor should not have formed the basis of the 
Director's analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the Director's 
reliance on the altered endeavor impacted the analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility for a national 
interest waiver, including whether the endeavor has substantial merit or national importance, we will 
withdraw the Director's decision. 
Notwithstanding the deficiencies in the Director's decision and our withdrawal thereof: the evidence 
of record does not appear to demonstrate that the Petitioner met the requirements of the analytical 
framework set forth in Dhanasar, which requires the Petitioner to demonstrate that: (1) her endeavor 
4 
has substantial merit and national importance, (2) she is well-positioned to advance the endeavor, and 
(3) on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. However, because 
the Director's decision does not properly apply the Dhanasar framework to the facts in the record, we 
will remand the matter for entry of a new decision, and further consideration of whether the Petitioner 
can establish that she satisfies the criteria for an advanced degree professional. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5