remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Mathematics Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22755723 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 13, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a postsecondary education teacher, seeks second preference immigrant classification 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative , classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability , 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 , noting that "[a]fter the [P]etitioner has 
established .. . eligibility for second preference classification under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the [ Act], 
[U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] may grant a national interest waiver if the [P]etitioner 
demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that [the criteria established in Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), have been satisfied]." The Director proceeded to conduct aDhanasar 
analysis without first concluding whether the Petitioner qualifies for a second preference classification 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative, as an individual of 
exceptional ability. In a prior request for evidence (RFE), the Director asserted: 
[the record] establishes that the [Petitioner] holds a bachelor's degree in mathematics 
and more than two years education and experience teaching mathematics and thus 
qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Therefore, at 
this time, USCIS does not need to evaluate whether the [Petitioner] also qualifies as an 
[individual] of exceptional ability . 
The Director misstated the regulatory criteria for establishing the equivalent to an advanced degree 
and, therefore, erroneously concluded that the record established that the Petitioner satisfied the 
criteria. The regulations provide that a "United States baccalaureate degree or 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," not a bachelor's degree and more than two years of education 
and experience, as the Director stated. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) . 
Additionally, we note unresolved deficiencies in the record regarding the Petitioner's work experience. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner's work experience includes periods of overlapping 
employment, in addition to teaching subjects unrelated to mathematics, such as "Technology in 
Business Management" and "Technology in Real Estate Business," raising questions regarding the 
extent to which the Petitioner was accruing progressive experience in the specialty of mathematics 
education during certain periods. Relatedly, letters in the record from the Petitioner's prior employers 
do not indicate whether the Petitioner worked on a full-time basis during any of the specified periods. 
For example, one letter asserts thatthe Petitioner"was our regular employee, teaching [ m ]a thematics," 
another letter states that the Petitioner "was part of this [ e ]ducation [i]nstitution ... working as a 
teacher;" another letter asserts that the Petitioner "worked at the school institution ... [ w ]ith the 
position of [ m ]athematics [p ]rof essor for the high school course;" and another letter states that the 
Petitioner "worked in our school unit ... performing the position of mathematics' teacher." Although 
the letters specify the period during which the Petitioner worked, none elaborate on whether the 
Petitioner worked on a full-time basis. The Director did not address these deficiencies in the record 
regarding the Petitioner's work experience. 
While we conduct de novo review on appeal, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case 
because the Director's decision is insufficient for review. As presently constituted, the record does 
not establish whether the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or, in the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to determine if the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for the underlying classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
or, in the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability, and to enter a new decision. The Director 
may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination and any other 
issue. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
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. 
2