PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
DismissedNational Interest Waiver · Appeal

Information security analyst

Computing, AI & data · decided 2024-08-13 · TSC · AUG132024_02B5203

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
    CONCLUSION The record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification either as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability as that matter has been waived; therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. p. 4
    The Director's denial rested on this
    Advanced Degree Professional The Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish she is eligible for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 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 that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-classification nor are they eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. See in text

What the AAO decided

Main reasons given

  • Therefore, the record does not establish that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. See in text
  • Because the credibility of the credential evaluation is in question, we conclude that it holds little probative value in this matter. See in text
  • In summation, the record does not establish the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See in text
Show 3 more
  • The record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification either as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability as that matter has been waived; therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. See in text
  • The record also contains transcripts of her course work to earn this title, which shows that she completed her courses from 1992 to 1994, which amounts to 3 years of school, and does not establish that it is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. See in text
  • Here, the record does not establish the Petitioner earned the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree and the record does not establish that the additional course is the U.S. equivalent of a master's degree. See in text
Read the full decision (4 pages)

Objections found (5)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

  • Step 0Degree not shown to be a U.S. advanced degree equivalent
    On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she holds a "Bachelor's Degree in Technology and Data Processing from I land a Master's Degree in MBA from ________ The record, however, does not include sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner's degree is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. See in text (p. 2)
  • Step 0Exceptional ability not established
    Individual of Exceptional Ability In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner met only two of the requisite three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F), and therefore, she did not establish her eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. p. 2
  • Prong 1Relied on a labor shortage
    She asserts the Director did not give "due regard" to the evidence submitted, specifically: the resume outlining her experience; the business plan describing her professional credentials, expertise, and accomplishments; evidence of her work in the field; letters ofrecommendation; and industry reports and articles showing the national importance of the proposed endeavor and the shortage ofprofessionals with her profile in the field. See in text (p. 2)
  • Prong 2Plan or projections not corroborated
    She asserts the Director did not give "due regard" to the evidence submitted, specifically: the resume outlining her experience; the business plan describing her professional credentials, expertise, and accomplishments; evidence of her work in the field; letters ofrecommendation; and industry reports and articles showing the national importance of the proposed endeavor and the shortage ofprofessionals with her profile in the field. p. 2
  • ProcedureInconsistencies in the record
    The diploma demonstrates that she completed her four-year course of studies at IHowever, this statement is contradicted by the record. 1 See Flores v. 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 (2) AAO finding (6) Tagged objection (3)Matter of X citation
Decision header
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · Date: AUG. 13, 2024 · In Re: 30634432 · Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver)

The Petitioner, an information security analyst, 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. § 1153(b)(2).

The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-classification nor are they eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

Law

To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act.

An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).

If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship p. 2 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.

Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.

Eligibility for Eb-2 Classification

The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director did not apply the proper standard ofproof, instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applying the law. She asserts the Director did not give "due regard" to the evidence submitted, specifically: the resume outlining her experience; the business plan describing her professional credentials, expertise, and accomplishments; evidence of her work in the field; letters ofrecommendation; and industry reports and articles showing the national importance of the proposed endeavor and the shortage ofprofessionals with her profile in the field.Relied on a labor shortage Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Director properly analyzed the evidence to evaluate the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of evidence and the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she is eligible for EB-2 classification, as addressed below. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76.

A. Individual of Exceptional Ability

In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner met only two of the requisite three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F), and therefore, she did not establish her eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. On appeal, the Petitioner does not address the Director's conclusion that she did not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability. Therefore, we consider this issue waived on appeal. See Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012), (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also, e.g., Matter ofM-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009).

B. Advanced Degree Professional

The Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish she is eligible for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she holds a "Bachelor's Degree in Technology and Data Processing from I land a Master's Degree in MBA from ________Degree not shown to be a U.S. advanced degree equivalent

The record, however, does not include sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner's degree is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. The credential evaluation of the Petitioner's training, education, and experience states that, "[i]n 1994, she completed examinations and was awarded a Bachelor's degree in Data Processing. The diploma demonstrates that she completed her four-year course of studies at IHowever, this statement is contradicted by the record.Inconsistencies in the record

The record contains a diploma granting the Petitioner, "Titulo de Tecn6logo em Processamento de Dados," which translates to, "Title of Technologist in Data Processing." We reviewed the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE). According to EDGE, the diploma represents attainment of a level of education comparable to completion of a vocational or other specialized high school curriculum in the United States. We consider EDGE to be a reliable source of information about foreign credential equivalencies. See Confluence Intern., Inc. v. Holder, Civil No. 08-2665 (DSD-JJG), 2009 WL 825793 (D. Minn. Mar. 27, 2009); Tisco Group, Inc. v. Napolitano, No. 09-cv-10072, 2010 WL 3464314 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2010); Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. No. 09-13605, 2010 WL 3325442 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2010). See also Viraj, LLC v. Holder, No. 2:12-CV-00127-RWS, 2013 WL 1943431 (N.D. Ga. May 18, 2013). See https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/paraguay for infonnation regarding the education system in Paraguay. The record also contains transcripts of her course work to earn this title, which shows that she completed her courses from 1992 to 1994, which amounts to 3 years of school, and does not establish that it is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Therefore, the record does not establish that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The Petitioner also contends that she holds a "Master's Degree in MBA." The record contains a "Declaration of Participation" for completing a graduate course for, "Specialist- MBA, in Project Management." The credential evaluation states that this is the equivalent of a "advanced degree in project management," however, it did not state that this was the equivalent of a master's degree as the Petitioner claims. Here, the record does not establish the Petitioner earned the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree and the record does not establish that the additional course is the U.S. equivalent of a master's degree. On appeal, the Petitioner highlights that she has over 25 years of experience in the field. While we acknowledge her experience, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) does not provide for a substitution of training or experience to be considered as the equivalent of a bachelor's degree; both section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act and the regulation contemplate only a single degree, not a combination of education and experience claimed as the equivalent, in aggregate, of a degree. Credential evaluations are reviewed for advisory purposes only; if questionable in any way, USCIS may give them less weight. See Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988). Because the credibility of the credential evaluation is in question, we conclude that it holds little probative value in this matter. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.

In summation, the record does not establish the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the criteria set forth in the precedent decision Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).

Conclusion

The record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification either as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability as that matter has been waived; therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.