The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and an individual of exceptional ability, 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 the classification sought or for the national interest waiver. Thematterisnowbeforeusonappeal. 8C.F.R.§103.3.
The Petitionerbears the burden ofproofto demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe 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.
TherecorddoesnotidentifythePetitioner'sintendedoccupation. Initially,thePetitionerstatedthat she seeks employment as an "entrepreneur" in the field of "finance." "Finance" is a broad field that encompasses many different occupations. In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted that "the petitioner did not provide a nontechnical job description of her proposed endeavor." Although the Petitioner responded to the RFE, her response did not address this issue.
When the Director denied the petition, the Director identified several deficiencies as grounds for denial. The Petitioner's appeal consists of a statement in which the Petitioner repeats her RFE response, almost verbatim, adding the phrase "USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] erred in finding otherwise" to several paragraphs. The appeal statement also includes additional information relating to her claim of eligibility for the national interest waiver.
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 ofexceptionalabilityinthesciences,arts,orbusiness. Section203(b)(2)(B)(i)oftheAct.
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 d e g r e e f o l l o w e d b y f i v e y e a r s o f p r o g r e s s i v e e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e s p e c i a l t y is t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f a m a s t e r ' s degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). "Profession" is defined as of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32)oftheAct, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32),aswellas anyoccupationforwhicha United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation.
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3).
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 Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth six criteria, at least three ofwhich an alien must meetinordertoqualifyasanalienofexceptionalabilityinthesciences,thearts,orbusiness. When she filed the petition in November 2019, the Petitioner claimed eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, but she did not explain which of the six regulatory criteria she claimed to satisfy.Exceptional ability not established In response to the Director's RFE, the petitioner claimed to have satisfied three of the criteria:
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar awardfrom a college, university, school, or other institution o f learning relatingtotheareaofexceptionalability. 8C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A).
The listed occupations are architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary orsecondaty schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries.
If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish theireligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii).
U S C I S h a s p r e v i o u s l y c o n f i r m e d t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h i s t w o - p a r t a d j u d i c a t i v e a p p r o a c h in t h e c o n t e x t o f i n d i v i d u a l s o f exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5.
Sec also Poursina v. USCJS, 936F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). satisfies at least three o f six categories o f evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree ofexpertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Exceptional Ability
Meeting at least
We then grant a national
The translation of a diploma from Iuniversity states that the Petitioner "accomplished the full academic course ofthe University, specializing in- [sic] Commodity science and organization of trading with nonfoods." The translator signed the translation, stating: "This translation corresponds to original." This statement does not meet the regulatory requirements. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).
In the RFE, the Director asked the Petitioner for a properly certified translation of the diploma, and further information about the degree and the underlying course work.
In response, the Petitioner submitted another copy ofthe translation ofthe diploma, with a certification by a different translator. This second translator stated: "I have made WRITTEN translation of the attached document" (emphasis in original), but the accompanying English translation appears to be a photocopyofthefirstversion. Thetwotranslationsareidenticalincontentandappearance,withthe same superfluous hyphen between the words "in" and "Commodity." Thus, two different translators claim not only to have translated the same document, but to have prepared the same translation.
In the denial notice, the Director concluded that the evidence is deficient because the Petitioner had not shown that the diploma relates to the area of claimed exceptional ability. Specifically, the Petitioner had not explained how a diploma in "Commodity science and organization oftrading with nonfoods" pertains to the field of "finance." We will not speculate as to how the degree might relate to the field of finance, because it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred,but she does not explain how her degree relates to her field. The Petitioner has neither addressed nor overcome the Director's conclusions.
Evidence in the form ofletter(s) from current orformer employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years offul!-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B).
The Petitioner submitted letters attesting to her employment as an appraiser in the Republic o f Georgia, first at a bank inl Ifrom 1998 to 2017, and then for a microfinance organization inl from 2017 to 2019. The letters did not specify whether the Petitioner's employment was full-time.
Evidence relating to qualifying experience shall be in the form of letters from currentor former employers and shall include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the individual or ofthe training received. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(l). The submitted letters do not fully meet these requirements, because the letters do not include specific descriptions of the Petitioner's duties.
In the RFE, the Director observed that the employers' letters were deficient, because they did not specifythePetitioner'sdutiesandshowthattheemploymentwasfull-time. Inresponse,thePetitioner resubmitted copies ofthe same letters.
The Director denied the petition, stating that, upon being advised of the deficiencies in her initial evidence, the Petitioner "submitted the same evidence." On appeal, the Petitioner summarizes her claimed employment history, but she does not address or overcome the deficiencies that the Director identified in the employers' letters.
We agree with the Director that the letters do not meet the minimum evidentiary requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l) and (k)(3)(ii)(B). As a result, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence of past employment. Furthermore, because the Petitioner has not specified the occupation in which she intends to work in the United States, she has not shown that the letters establish experience in the occupation she seeks to pursue.
Evidence o frecognition.for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) The Petitioner did not initially claim to have satisfied this criterion. In the RFE, the Director suggested various types o f evidence that might show recognition for the Petitioner's achievements and significant contributions. In response, the Petitioner claimed that her evidence "clearly established that this criterion has been met," but she did not specifically identify what evidence addressed the criterion or how it did so.
We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not identify any record evidence relevant to this criterion, or explain how she satisfies the criterion. The Petitioner repeats, on appeal, that she has satisfied it, but does not say how. The burden ofproofis on the Petitioner, and she cannot meet that burden simply by asserting that she has met it.
The Petitioner's evidence does not satisfy at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). Therefore, she has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an individual ofexceptional ability.
Advanced Degree Professional
The Petitioner did not initially claim to qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. IntheRFE,theDirectorstatedthat,ifthePetitionerseeksthisclassification,shemustsubmit further documentation to show that she possesses either (1) an advanced degree or (2) a U.S. baccalaureate degree or equivalent foreign degree followed by at least five years of progressive experienceinthespecialtyinwhichthePetitionerseeksemployment. TheDirectoracknowledgedthe Petitioner's previous submission of a diploma from the University ofl Ibut the Director noted that the Petitioner had not submitted "transcripts or an evaluation of credentials" to establish that the degree was equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate or advanced degree.Degree not shown to be a U.S. advanced degree equivalent
As noted above, the Petitioner resubmitted copies of the diploma and the same translation in response to the RFE, but she did not provide any further evidence or information to establish equivalence to a baccalaureate or higher degree from a U.S. institution.
The Director concluded that the diploma and employers' letters, as submitted, were deficient. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she "clearly established that she is advanced degree professional p. 5 [sic]," but she does not address or overcome the deficiencies identified by the Director. The record does not contain the minimum evidence required to establish eligibility for the classification sought.
Beyond the above determinations, we add that, because the Petitioner has not identified the specific occupation in which she intends to work, she has not established that she qualifies as a member of the professions. Qualification as a professional depends on the requirements for the position, not the educational background ofthe individual. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
Nationalinterestwaiver
The Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification under section 203(b)(2) of the Act, eitheras amemberoftheprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree,orasanindividualofexceptional ability. Because this issue detennines the outcome ofthe Petitioner's appeal, we reserve the appellate arguments regarding the national interest waiver. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision ofwhich 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).
Neve1iheless, we agree with the Director's observation in the RFE that the Petitioner has not described a specific proposed endeavor. On the petition form, the Petitioner described herself as an "entrepreneur," but she claimed no past experience establishing or operating her own business. Her past experience was as an appraiser for financial institutions. The Petitioner did not specify what type of business she intends to establish in the United States, or how her proposed endeavor meets the requirements set f01ih in the Dhanasar framework.
The initial submission includes a statement, signed by the Petitioner, indicating that her education and experience have given her "transferrable skills, such as: analytical skills, mathematical abilities, customer service experience, communication with people of all backgrounds, [and] leadership expertise," which she plans to use in "the field of finance." The Petitioner, however, provided no further details about what she plans to do in that field, even after the Director specifically asked for that information.
The Petitioner's initial statement also indicated that "the architectural industry is experiencing a vast shortage of qualified workers." The Petitioner claims no credentials or qualifications as an architect, and therefore this reference to "the architectural industry" raises questions about the true authorship of her statement.
Conclusion
We will dismiss the appeal, because the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.