remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 03, 2024 In Re: 29241595 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). He also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to the EB-
2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(l) of the Act. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
established his eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, the record did not establish that he is eligible for, and otherwise merits as a matter of discretion, 
a national interest waiver. 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 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 as 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 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 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. 
II. EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
The Petitioner claims to be eligible for the EB-2 immigrant classification as both a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability. 
A. Advanced Degree Professional 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree. For the reasons provided below, we withdraw the 
Director's determination. 
The Petitioner submitted the following evidence related to his education: 
• Transcript and certificate of completion of "Latu Sensu" specialization postgraduate studies[ 
MBA in Strategic Business Management, ....I __________________ __,_ 
awarded in July 2015. 
• Transcript and diploma for Title of Technologist degree in Marketing Management,
I lawarded in April 2011. 
• Education evaluation by United States Credential Evaluations, indicating that the Petitioner's 
technologist degree is equivalent to two years of undergraduate study in management and that 
he has "sufficient years of specialized training and work experience to equate to ... college 
coursework in Marketing and Management." 
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 USCTS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
3 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
This evidence does not support the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has either a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree 
followed by five years of progressive experience in the same specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
( defining "advanced degree"). 
According to the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) 
Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), a lato sensu course certificate is not necessarily 
evidence of completion of a graduate degree program. 4 The database states that lato sensu or "wide 
sense" graduate programs "lead toward a professional certificate, not to graduate degrees; graduate 
credits may be awarded." 5 The database contrasts this with stricto sensu or "strict sense" graduate 
programs which do lead toward graduate degrees. 6 Although the Petitioner submitted an evaluation 
of his academic credentials, the evaluator does not discuss his lato sensu MBA certificate specifically, 
does not address the distinction between lato sensu and stricto sensu programs in Brazil, and does not 
state that this lato sensu course certificate should be considered equivalent to a U.S. advanced degree. 
Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that his MBA certificate is the equivalent 
of an academic or professional degree above that of a bachelor's degree. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
The information provided by the EDGE database also indicates that a Brazilian "title of technologist" 
is awarded following two to three years of university study. This is consistent with the evaluator's 
determination, as the evaluator did not determine that the technologist degree alone was the foreign 
equivalent of a bachelor's degree. An individual who does not possess at least a U.S. bachelor's degree 
or foreign equivalent degree is ineligible for classification as an advanced degree professional. The 
regulatory definition of advanced degree requires at least a bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree and does not permit a combination of lesser degrees and/or experience. Accordingly, the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner is eligible to be classified as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree is withdrawn. 
B. Exceptional Ability 
The Petitioner claimed, in the alternative, that he is eligible for classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability. The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted evidence relating to five of the 
six categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) at the time of filing. The Director did 
not address this evidence or the Petitioner's eligibility for EB-2 classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability in the request for evidence (RFE) or in the final decision. 
We have reviewed the record and determined that it is insufficient, as presently constituted, to establish 
that the Petitioner meets the initial evidence requirements for this classification. For example, 
although the Petitioner claims he has 10 years of relevant full-time work experience under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), he did not provide "evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former 
4 We consider EDGE to be a reliable source of information about foreign credential equivalencies. See Confluence Intern., 
Inc. v. Holder, Civil No. 08-2665 (DSD-JJG), 2009 WL 825793 (D. Minn. Mar. 27, 2009); Tisco Group, Inc. v. Napolitano, 
No. 09-cv-l 0072. 2010 WL 3464314 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2010); Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. No. 09-13605. 2010 WL 
3325442 (E.D. Mich. Aug.20.2010). See also Viraj, LLC v. Holder, No. 2: 12-CV-00127-RWS, 2013 WL 1943431 (N.D. 
Ga. May 18, 2013). 
5 See https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/glossary/brazil for more information. 
6 Id. 
3 
employers" in support of this claim; rather he relied on a letter from an individual who states she has 
been his accountant since 2005. The Petitioner provided evidence of his annual income for the years 
2012 to 2014, he did not provide evidence demonstrating how the remuneration he commanded for 
his services is indicative of his claimed exceptional ability relative to others working in the same field 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). Further, although the Petitioner provided evidence of his 
membership in the Financial Planning Association (FP A), he did not provide any information about 
the FP A or evidence demonstrating that it is a "professional association" as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
These and other evidentiary deficiencies related to the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) 
were not addressed in the Director's RFE issued on November 4, 2022, and the Petitioner has therefore 
not had the opportunity to address them. Therefore, we will remand this matter to the Director for 
further evaluation of the Petitioner's eligibility for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability, and for the additional reasons provided below. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies any of the three prongs 
set forth in the analytical framework established by Matter ofDhanasar. 7 On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that the Director's analysis of his eligibility for the requested national interest waiver contained 
numerous errors of fact and law and did not adequately explain why the evidence he provided was 
insufficient to meet his burden of proof 
In addressing the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Director observed, incorrectly, that the 
Petitioner "intends to work as an account assistant," erroneously referred to the Petitioner's field of 
proposed employment as "brand strategy," and determined that the Petitioner "has not provided a 
detailed description of the proposed endeavor." The Director observed that "[a]t no point in the 
petition do you describe what your proposed endeavor is beyond working as an account assistant." 
On this basis, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet his burden to establish that his 
proposed endeavor is of national importance; the decision does not reach a determination as to whether 
the Petitioner established the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. 
The Director's determination that the Petitioner intends to work as an "account assistant" in the field 
of "brand strategy" is contrary to the evidence of record, in which the Petitioner consistently indicates 
his intent to work as a financial manager. This repeated error suggests that the Director may have 
been referencing evidence submitted in support of an unrelated petition. Further, the Director's 
conclusion that the Petitioner did not describe his proposed endeavor fails to address his professional 
plan and its description of the proposed endeavor and its national importance. Nor did the Director 
address other evidence submitted in relation to the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, which 
included an expert opinion letter. The decision also contains a reference to a request for evidence (RFE) 
issued on November 22, 2022, in which the Director allegedly "sought further documentation of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor." The RFE in this matter was issued on November 4, 2022, and did not 
7 The Director also observed that the Petitioner did not submit, as required, the employee-specific portions of a permanent 
labor certification (either on Form ETA 750B or Form ETA 9089). See 8 C.F.R. §204.5(k)(4)(ii); see generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.5(O), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. However, the record reflects the Petitioner submitted a 
completed Form ETA 750B at the time of filing. 
4 
in fact request any additional evidence pertaining to the proposed endeavor or to the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
As to the third prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Director, once again referring to the Petitioner's 
"future endeavors as an account assistant," concluded that he "has not established 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." The Director's decision stated the law and the relevant considerations in performing 
the third prong's balancing analysis. However, the Director did not sufficiently identify or discuss the 
evidence they weighed in balancing those considerations or meaningfully address the Petitioner's 
specific claims regarding his eligibility under the third prong. The Director's analysis of the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework is similarly lacking any specific discussion of the Petitioner's 
evidence. 
Overall, the errors noted, particularly the erroneous references to the nature of Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor, and the lack of discussion of the specific evidence in the record, make it unclear whether 
the Director fully analyzed the evidence submitted by the Petitioner and based the decision solely on 
that evidence. An officer must explain the specific reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(a)(i). This explanation should be sufficient to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest 
the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., Matter ofM­
P- 20 I&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). 
Because the Director's did not sufficiently explain the reasons for finding the Petitioner ineligible 
under the Dhanasar framework, we will withdraw the decision. On remand, the Director should 
review the entire record in considering whether the Petitioner has sufficiently identified his proposed 
endeavor and whether he has established eligibility under each of the three prongs of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
This matter will be remanded to the Director to determine if the Petitioner has established eligibility 
for the underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability and for a national interest 
waiver. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new 
determination prior to issuing a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5