remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Security Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11895419 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 12, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a security analyst, seeks second preference 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 Nebraska 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 
Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification , 
would be in the national interest. Specifically, the Director stated that "[the Petitioner] submitted 
sufficient evidence to establish he holds a master's degree in defense studies and thus qualifies for the 
requested [second preference] classification ." For the reasons discussed below, we withdraw that 
conclusion. 
The record contains a copy of a "Bachelor of Social Science" degree certificate, typed in English, 
awarded to the Petitioner by National University inl I The record also contains a 
copy of a "Master in Defence Studies" degree certificate, typed in English, awarded to the Petitioner 
by National University . In addition, the record contains two one-page documents, written in English 
and signed by both the assistant controller of examinations and the deputy controller of examinations 
for National University, certifying that the Petitioner passed the examinations required for the 
respective degrees. The certifications do not indicate that the foreign degrees are equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's and master's degree, respectively, nor are they from an independent academic credentials 
evaluation service. 
The record does not contain an independent review of the academic credentials from a reliable 
credentials evaluation service which specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials. 
Accordingly , the record does not establish either that the Petitioner's bachelor's degree is equivalent 
to a U.S. bachelor's degree or that the Petitioner 's master 's degree is equivalent to an advanced U.S. 
degree, in order for the Petitioner to qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "advanced degree" for the purposes of a Form 1-140, 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, as "any United States academic or professional degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree above that of a baccalaureate" ( emphasis added)). 
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. See section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 1 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to conduct a final merits determination of 
the advanced degree issue and 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 farther 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
1 We further note that the record-both at the time of filing and at the time of the Director's decision-does not contain 
sufficient information regarding the proposed endeavor the Petitioner would pursue in the United States to meaningfully 
analyze whether any of the Dhanasar prongs have been satisfied. See Matter of Dlzanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884. 889-90 
(AAO 2016); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1) (requiring a petitioner to ·'establish that he or she is eligible for the requested 
benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and ... continue to be eligible through adjudication"). 
2