remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Sports Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23077970 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 23, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a sports development consultant, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner is qualified 
as an advanced degree professional, but that he 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. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&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. 
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. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i) state that a petition for an advanced degree professional 
must be accompanied by either: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the [noncitizen] has a United States 
advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree; or 
(B) An official academic record showing that the [noncitizen] 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 [noncitizen] has at least 
five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
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). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the 
noncitizen 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. 2 
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). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The Petitioner does not assert nor does 
the record establish that he is an individual of exceptional ability. 3 The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner qualified for the underlying visa classification because he has the foreign degree equivalent 
to a U.S. advanced degree. For the reasons discussed below, we withdraw the Director's conclusion on 
this issue. 4 
The Petitioner has submitted evidence regarding his foreign education credentials in pursuit of this 
and other immigration benefits. In the initial filing he submitted a Form ETA- 750B, Statement of 
Qualifications of [Individual], which he signed in March 2019 and attested under perjury pursuant to 
29 U.S.C. 1746 that the information contained therein is true and correct. Part B, Item 11 of this form 
states that the Beneficiar earned a di loma in " h sical culture" in 1995 after a four-year period of 
study at [U-] and earned a master's degree in "state and 
social" at the ____________ [A-] during a period of study from 2011 to 2012. 
The Petitioner also provided a copy of his diplomas and course transcripts as evidence of his foreign 
education credentials froml • [U-], which indicate that he 
specialized in physical culture while studying there and as a result of a decision of the State 
Examination Commission he qualified "as a teacher of physical culture [ and] as a coach in boxing." 
His credentials from A- indicate that he earned a master's degree in state and social construction. 
He also initially submitted an evaluation of his credentials prepared by 
[E-] in March 2019, in which the evaluator opined: 
[The Petitioner] has earned a single foreign degree that is considered equivalent to a 
U.S. Master of Public Administration degree from a regionally accredited college or 
university in the United States. A bachelor's degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree is required for entry to master's studies in I 
In cases involving foreign degrees, USCIS may favorably consider a credentials evaluation performed 
by an independent credentials evaluator who provides a credible, logical, and well-documented case 
for an equivalency determination that is based solely on the individual's foreign degree(s). Opinions 
3 To establish eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, a petitioner must provide documentation that satisfies at 
least three of six regulatory criteria to meet the initial evidence requirements for this classification. See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). If a petitioner satisfies these initial requirements, we then consider the entire record to determine 
whether the individual has a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. See 
Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d I I 15 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) ( discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and 
then, ifit satisfies the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); See USCTS 6 
Policy Manual F.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f'..chapter-2. Only those who demonstrate "a 
degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" are eligible for classification as individuals of 
exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
4 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
rendered that are merely conclusory and do not provide a credible roadmap that clearly lays out the 
basis for the opm10ns are not persuasive. See 9 USCIS Policy Manual F.5, 
https ://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-e-chapter-9. 
While the evaluator generally discussed the post-secondary education system in I as part of 
her evaluation, she did not discuss, analyze, or ultimately determine the equivalency, if any, of the 
Petitioner's 1995 diploma from U- to education obtained at an accredited institution of higher learning 
in the United States. The 1995 diploma, based on the English translation, merely states that he is 
qualified "as a teacher of physical culture [and] as a coach in boxing," not that he earned a college 
degree through this program of study. The evaluator's sole focus on the education equivalency of the 
Petitioner's master's degree - without considering the educational equivalency of his underlying 
education falls short in demonstrating that he possesses a "United States academic or professional 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of [a] baccalaureate [degree]." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
For these reasons it appears that the submitted evaluation does not credibly offer an analytical roadmap 
that persuasively lays out the basis for the evaluator's opinions. It is important to understand that any 
educational equivalency evaluation performed by a credentials evaluator or school official is solely 
advisory in nature and that the final determination continues to rest solely with USCIS. Id. (See also 
Matter of Caron International, l 9 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm. 1988), Matter of Sea, Inc. 19 I&N Dec. 817 
(Comm 1988), and Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1988).) Thus, we are remanding the matter 
back to the Director to reassess whether this evaluation is of probative value to the matter here. Matter 
of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In considering anew whether the evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 
classification as an advanced degree professional, the Director should take note that the regulations 
state that a petitioner must have either (A) "a United States advanced degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree," or (B) "a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree" plus "at least 
five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty" to be eligible for classification 
as an advanced degree professional. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A) and (B) ( emphasis added). No U.S. 
or foreign equivalent education is acceptable, under either alternative, unless it includes the specified 
degree. 
To qualify as an advanced degree professional, a beneficiary relying on foreign education must have 
a single, foreign degree that equates to at least a U.S. baccalaureate degree. The regulations do not 
allow baccalaureate equivalents based on combinations of lesser educational credentials or of 
education and experience. See Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions, 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 
(Nov. 29, 1991) (stating that "both the Act and its legislative history make clear that, in order to .... 
have experience equating to an advanced degree under the second [preference category], a [ noncitizen] 
must have at least a bachelor's degree") ( emphasis added). 
As discussed, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines an advanced degree as "any United 
States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate." 
( emphasis added.) Since the record does not show that the Beneficiary possesses the requisite singular 
foreign degree equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, it appears questionable that the Petitioner's 
foreign master's degree is "above that of a [U.S.] baccalaureate degree" and that his master's degree 
meets the regulatory definition of an advanced degree for EB-2 classification purposes. 
4 
Additionally, as it appears that record does not establish that the Beneficiary has a single, foreign 
degree that equates to at least a U.S. baccalaureate degree, the Director should also consider whether 
the Petitioner alternatively qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an individual holding a "United 
States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of 
progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
We also observe that the Petitioner has presented inconsistent evidence about his foreign education in 
the pursuit of obtaining immigration benefits. In the initial filing he asserted that he is "an advanced 
degree professional who obtained a Ph.D in Pedagogy and a Master's degree in Public 
Administration." On appeal, the Petitioner asserts "[i]n 1995 [the Petitioner] graduated from [U-] and 
entered graduate school. In 2002, he successfully defended his thesis on the topic I I I I In that same year, he was awarded the 
advanced degree as "Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences (Ph.D.)." 
In contrast, the Petitioner's employment workbook indicates that in 1998 he was "expelled from post­
graduate school because of the end of study time." Other entries in his workbook indicate that he was 
employed as a "coach-trainer" in 2001 and that his employment contract for this position ended in 
August 2002. He then went on to be employed as a "Football Methodist" by another institution from 
September 2002 through July of 2003. Additionally, while the Petitioner claims to have earned a Ph.D 
in 2002, he did not include this program of study in the Form ETA-750B submitted with the petition. 
The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Doubt cast on any aspect of the Petitioner's [evidence] may, of course, 
lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of 
the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner also did not include information regarding his 2002 and 2012 graduate degree study 
programs in the nonimmigrant visa applications that he submitted to the Department of State (DOS). 
In his 2015 visa application he indicated that he attended U- from 1991 - 199 5 and that his course of 
study was "faculty of combat," not as a diploma in "physical culture" as noted in the Form ETA-750. 
Contrary to the information provided in his Form ETA 750, he also described his education in his 2017 
visa application as a course of study at U- in "single combat," from 1991 - 1998. The Petitioner must 
also address these inconsistencies in the record. Id. 
Accordingly, the Director should consider these issues and determine if the Petitioner qualifies as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
The Director discussed the Petitioner's evidence and description of his proposed endeavor concluding 
that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit and is of national importance. For the following 
reasons, we withdraw his determinations in this regard. The first prong in Dhanasar, which requires 
a showing of both substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. Considering the totality of the evidence, the record does not appear 
to sufficiently substantiate the nature of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor(s). 
5 
The Petitioner stated in Part 6 of the petition that he is seeking employment as a "sports development 
consultant," asserting that this position comports with the duties and responsibilities of those employed 
in the "Management Analysts, SOC Code 13-1111" occupation. According to the U.S. Department of 
Labor's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) online summary report for this occupation, 
"Management Analysts" typically: 5 
Conduct organizational studies and evaluations, design systems and procedures, 
conduct work simplification and measurement studies, and prepare operations and 
procedures manuals to assist management in operating more efficiently and effectively. 
Includes program analysts and management consultants. 
The Petitioner discussed his past accommplishments in the initial filing, and indicated that he "creates 
development and administrative processes for national sports organizations to ensure successful 
development of elite national athletes." He provided a "prospective plan of work[] in the USA for 2019-
2023, which indicated for instance that he will devote much of 2019 to 2020 to "learning [the] English 
language [ and] the achievements of the USA in physical culture and sports;" and that he would also make 
contacts with United States universities, sports organizations, the U.S. Olympic committee, and the 
American boxing association. His plan alludes to his intention to perform a diverse array of activities, 
such as: 
• Establishing a list of competitions in the U.S. on martial arts and contact the organizing 
committee; 
• Establish[ing] health clubs and sections for disabled people and the elderly in the 
• Becoming a member of 
• Get acquainted with the activities of scientific and theoretical journals of the USA; 
• Implementation of scientific research and innovations; 
• Provision of sports clubs and organizations with scientific works; and, 
• Developing and distributing social clips that promote physical culture and sports .... 
We observe that many of these activities appear to fall far afield of tasks that a "management analyst" 
would typically perform, and do not closely align with the Petitioner's concurrently stated intention to 
"create[] development and administrative processes for national sports organizations to ensure successful 
development of elite national athletes" in the petition. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a January 2021 
statement indicating that he will: 
[F]ocus on creating partnerships between sport organizations, educational institutions, 
and government agencies to increase visibility and development for underfunded 
Olympic sports in the United States, such as female boxing, as well as a particular focus 
on development of individual athlete sports which could qualify as potential Olympic 
sports such as sambo, and kickboxing. 
5 See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-l l l 1.00. 
6 
Here, the Petitioner presents a high-level listing of tasks with diverse areas of focus for his endeavor, 
such as learning English, learning about sports in the United States, competing in sports competitions, 
establishing health clubs and health club programs for the disabled and elderly, writing scientific 
articles, developing and implementing sports-related innovations, and organizing master classes and 
round tables featuring Olympic champions, among other things. The lack of detail regarding the 
specific activities that the Petitioner will pursue in his endeavor, and how he will carry through on 
these planned activities in the United States, raises questions regarding whether he has offered 
sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit and that it rises to the level of national importance. 
The Director should analyze the Petitioner's evidence to determine if his proposed endeavor has 
national or global implications in the field of sports development consulting, significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive economic effects. If the Director concludes that 
the Petitioner's documentation does not meet the substantial merit and national importance 
requirement of Dhanasar's first prong, his decision should discuss the insufficiencies in his evidence 
and explain the reasons for ineligibility. 6 
Regarding the Petitioner's remaining assertions of eligibility under the second and third prongs of the 
Dhanasar analysis, we agree with the Director's ultimate conclusions. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further review and entry of a new 
decision. On remand, the Director should review all evidence submitted to date (including the brief 
submitted on appeal), determine if the Petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, and analyze the Petitioner's arguments and evidence to 
determine if he meets all three requirements set forth in the Dhanasar framework. The Director may 
request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new decision. 
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. 
6 Moreover, in determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must also rely on the specific 
proposed endeavor to determine whether the foreign national is well positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis . 
7