PetitionLens
All decisions
DismissedNational Interest Waiver · Appeal

Construction project manager

Business & finance · decided 2023-04-07 · TSC · APR072023_01B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not met
    Why
    Further, since he has not demonstrated that he qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the remaining arguments concerning his national interest waiver claim. p. 2
  • Prong 1Merit and national importanceNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 2Well positioned to advance itNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 3Worth waiving the job offerNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant classification or that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement would be in the national interest. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. See in text
  • The Petitioner also provided evidence of his valid professional registration (license) as a civil engineer from the National Professional Council of Engineering (COPNIA) in Colombia and, thus, we withdraw the Director's conclusion regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). See in text
  • ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. See in text

Main reasons given

  • As an initial matter, the Petitioner did not provide "a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate" ofthe tax return as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b)(3). See in text
  • Finally, and as explained by the Director, in addition to the deficiencies in the submitted salary information, the Petitioner has not shown that the evidence regarding civil engineers and civil engineering drafters demonstrates his For all these reasons, the Petitioner has not met See in text
  • While the Petitioner did provide printouts from the COPNIA website which explains that it is a "public entity" which "[i]ssue[s] Registration Cards, Professional Registration Certificates and Registration Certificates to engineers," along with the requirements for registration, the documentation does not include information to establish that there is a membership component, As the Petitioner has not demonstrated that being issued a professional registration to practice his profession by a public entity qualifies as membership in a professional association, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. See in text
Show 2 more
  • Because the Petitioner does not satisfy at least three of the criteria, we need not conduct a final merits determination. See in text
  • Further, since he has not demonstrated that he qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the remaining arguments concerning his national interest waiver claim. See in text
Read the full decision (3 pages)

Objections found (1)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

  • Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they 2 As the Petitioner does not claim to meet the two remaining criteria on appeal, we will not address them here. 3 For example, while the letter from I confirms the Petitioner's role as a project manager, it does not include information regarding his salary or dates of employment. 4 While not a basis for our conclusion, we note that although the Petitioner submitted information regarding the average civil engineer salary in … See in text (p. 2)

Full decision

OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

Highlighted: Outcome (3) AAO finding (5) Tagged objection (1)Matter of X citation
Decision header
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · In Re: 24808560 · Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · Date: APR. 7, 2023 · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver)

The Petitioner, a construction project manager, seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB -2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so.

The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant classification or that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement would be in the national interest. 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 ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner mustfirst demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 immigrant 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.

"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. 8C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish 1 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual.

If a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits eligibility for this classification. 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, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act.

The Director determined that the Petitioner met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and we agree. The Petitioner also provided evidence of his valid professional registration (license) as a civil engineer from the National Professional Council of Engineering (COPNIA) in Colombia and, thus, we withdraw the Director's conclusion regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). In Evidence that the alien has commanded a sala,y, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D).

The record includes an "extract translation" ofthe Petitioner's 2017 tax return and salary information for civil engineers and civil engineering drafters. As an initial matter, the Petitioner did not provide "a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate" ofthe tax return as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b)(3). Further, the Petitioner did not supply supporting documentation to addition, he claims to meet the following two criteria. establish the source(s) of his "gross income earned from work" listed on his tax retum.

Finally, and as explained by the Director, in addition to the deficiencies in the submitted salary information, the Petitioner has not shown that the evidence regarding civil engineers and civil engineering drafters demonstrates his For all these reasons, the Petitioner has not met

Evidenceofmembershipinprofessionalassociations. 8C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E).

The Petitioner again relies on his professional registration as a civil engineer. While the Petitioner did provide printouts from the COPNIA website which explains that it is a "public entity" which "[i]ssue[s] Registration Cards, Professional Registration Certificates and Registration Certificates to engineers," along with the requirements for registration, the documentation does not include information to establish that there is a membership component, As the Petitioner has not demonstrated that being issued a professional registration to practice his profession by a public entity qualifies as membership in a professional association, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion.

Because the Petitioner does not satisfy at least three of the criteria, we need not conduct a final merits determination. Further, since he has not demonstrated that he qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the remaining arguments concerning his national interest waiver claim. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they As the Petitioner does not claim to meet the two remaining criteria on appeal, we will not address them here. 3 For example, while the letter from I confirms the Petitioner's role as a project manager, it does not include information regarding his salary or dates of employment.Support letters generic or unsupported

While not a basis for our conclusion, we note that although the Petitioner submitted information regarding the average civil engineer salary in Colombia from Indeed.com, the same website includes average salary information for construction managers, which is $ 105.695.011. This average salary is significantly higher than that of a civil engineer($ 39,851,781) and his 2017 gross earnings o f $ 65,376,000. See https://co.indeed.com/career/gerente-de-construcci%C3%B3n/salaries (last accessed Apr 7, 2023). exceptional ability as a construction project manager. this criterion. p. 3 reach); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.