remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Veterinary Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 11, 2023 In Re: 28947272 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a veterinary food inspector and entrepreneur, 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 classification. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner merited a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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 I&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 the 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 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. If a doctoral degree is customarily required for the specialty, the non-citizen must a United 
States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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 l&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: 
• 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 eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. In her decision, the Director concluded that the evidence, including the 
Petitioner's degree, transcripts, and letters documenting her work experience, established that she 
holds a foreign degree that is equivalent to a United States bachelor's degree and has at least five years 
of full-time, progressive experience working in her field after receiving her degree. We disagree and 
withdraw that portion of the Director's decision. 
USCIS will deny a visa petition if the petitioner submits evidence which contains false information. 
See section 204(b) of the Act. A petition includes its supporting evidence - including a labor certification. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ). Further, misrepresentation of a material fact may lead to multiple consequences 
in immigration proceedings. Any noncitizen who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material 
fact, seeks to procure ( or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or 
admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible. Section 
212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). 
A finding of material misrepresentation requires the following elements: the petitioner procured or 
sought to procure a benefit under U.S. immigration laws; they made a false representation; and the 
false representation was willfully made, material to the benefit sought, and made to a U.S. government 
official. Id.; see generally 8 USCIS Policy Manual J.2(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
Under Board precedent, a material misrepresentation is one which "tends to shut off a line of inquiry 
which is relevant to the [noncitizen's] eligibility and which might well have resulted in a proper 
determination that he be excluded." 2 A willful misrepresentation requires that the individual 
knowingly make a material misstatement to a government official for the purpose of obtaining an 
immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. 3 Material misrepresentation requires only a false 
statement that is material and willfully made. The term "willfully" means knowing and intentionally, 
as distinguished from accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief that the facts are otherwise. 4 
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 Matter ofS- and B-C-, 9 I&N Dec. 436,447 (BIA 1961). 
3 Sergueeva v. Holder, 324 Fed. Appx. 76 (2d Cir. 2009) ( citing Matter ofKai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288, 289-90 (BIA 
1975). 
4 See Matter ofHealy and Goodchild, 17 I&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA 1979). 
2 
Here, the record establishes that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree 
issued by an accredited college or university in the United States. 5 To show that she also has at least 
five years of progressive, post-degree experience, the Petitioner submitted the following letters: 
• ::=============':....:hc:.::e:..::a:..::d:....v:....:e:.:.te=;rinarian, October 2015 to October 2016, 
• , veterinarian (quality control), October 2015 to~---------------~ October 2016, 
• ._I_______ _.L chief veterinarian with technical responsibility, June 2012 to October 
2015, 
• Accountant state ment,~----------- owner and partner providing emergency 
and regular clinical care for animals, August 2013 to March 2016, 
• Former manager statement,! Iveterinarian with technical responsibility, 
September 2011 to September 2012. 
The Petitioner also submitted employment contracts with each of the first three employers listed above. 
In responding to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted slightly more detailed 
versions of the first three employer letters. The statements made in these letters regarding the 
Petitioner's dates of employment, hours of employment per week and duties generally match the 
Petitioner's statements regarding her employment history on the Form ETA 750B, Application for 
Alien Employment Certification, submitted with her petition. However, there are several 
discrepancies in the record which indicate that the Petitioner's statements and the employment letters 
contain willful misrepresentations of material fact. 
Regarding the dates of her employment, the letters fro m~----------~ and D 
I I cover the same period, October 2015 to October 2016. We first note that even if the 
Petitioner could establish that she worked two foll-time jobs during this period, this would still only 
show that she gained one year of qualifying experience. But more importantly, the Petitioner indicated 
on Form I-140 that her last date of arrival in the U.S. was April 28, 2016, which corresponds with 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records, and there is no indication that 
she has since departed. Despite the fact that the Petitioner left for the U.S. halfway through the stated 
period of employment, neither of the letters mention any change in her employment status, nor do they 
suggest that the work performed by the Petitioner could have been done while she was physically in 
the U.S. As such, both misrepresent the dates of her employment, which is material to her eligibility 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
As for the number of hours that the Petitioner worked for these employers, the letters from the first 
three employers listed above that were submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE) all state that she was employed foll-time, with the letter from I I specifically 
stating that she worked 40 hours per week. The same is true for the Petitioner's responses on the ETA 
750B, which she signed under penalty of perjury. However, there are discrepancies between this 
evidence and the contracts between the Petitioner and the companies that employed her, all of which 
state that she was employed for 6 hours per week. The Petitioner must resolve these discrepancies in 
5 The Director's reliance on the educational evaluation in the record is misplaced, as it does not conclude that the Petitioner 
holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, but reaches its conclusion by combining the Petitioner's education 
and work experience. However, the diploma and transcripts are sufficient to establish she earned the foreign equivalent 
of a U.S. bachelor's degree in veterinary medicine after more than four years of study. 
3 
the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the trnth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Also, unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to 
reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested 
immigration benefit. Id.; see also Matter of O-M-0-, 28 I&N Dec. 191, 197 (BIA 2021) ("by 
submitting fabricated evidence, the appellant compromised the integrity of his entire claim") ( cleaned 
up). 
On remand, the Director should reopen the petition and issue a notice of intent to deny (NOID), 
notifying the Petitioner of the material misrepresentations described above and providing her with an 
opportunity to respond. The Director should also consider the inconsistencies in the evidence, 
regardless of whether they are determined to stem from willful misrepresentations of material fact, in 
reassessing the Petitioner's eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The Petitioner initially presented a broad range of activities that she intended to pursue in the United 
States, including providing health care for animals, working to protect public health, researching 
medical conditions of pets and livestock, and "identifying opportunities for business," but clearly 
indicated that her plan is to "work with American veterinarian clinics." In response to the Director's 
RFE, however, she submitted a business plan for a company called! l stating that she 
is one of its owners and will act as its CEO and leading expert. According to the business plan, the 
company would offer food safety and sanitary inspection services. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In her decision, the Director determined that since the Petitioner's business plan was apparently 
created after the filing of the petition, it did not show that the Petitioner "will continue to work in the 
United States in the claimed field of expertise." We note that this is not a requirement that is found in 
the statute or regulations concerning national interest waivers, nor is it a part of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 6 However, 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). On remand, the Director should determine whether the business plan 
submitted in response to the RFE constituted an impermissible material change to the petition, and if 
so whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that her initially stated proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. 
6 A similar requirement is found at Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act, which pertains to petitions for individuals of 
extraordinary ability. 
4 
Also, in her analysis of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the Director 
notes that the evidence does not show how the Petitioner intends to achieve the sales goals stated in 
the business plan for I L or that other U.S. businesses have expressed interest in its 
services. But these are factors that are considered under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
when determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. On 
remand, the Director should focus on whether the Petitioner has shown that the potential prospective 
impact of her proposed endeavor is of national importance when determining her eligibility under the 
first prong. 
In addition, when determining the Petitioner's eligibility under all three prongs of the Dhansar 
analytical framework on remand, the Director should consider and address the Petitioner's statements 
in her appeal brief. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5