The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 ofthe Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, but that she had not had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest.
The Petitioner appealed the matter to us. We dismissed the appeal and denied seven subsequent motions to reopen. not established she qualified for the underlying immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. The matter is now before us on an eighth motion to reopen. With the motion, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that she is eligible for EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver.
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion.
I.LAW
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence o f new facts. The requirements o f a motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit.
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions:
Contrary to the Director's detennination, we also found that the Petitioner had Matter ofT-A-Y-, ID# 2525500 (AAO Mar. 26, 2019) was our most recent decision in this matter. p. 2 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 ofprogressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree.
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business.
Additionally, in order to demonstrate exceptional ability, a petitioner must submit at least three of the types of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F).
Furthermore, with respect to demonstrating eligibility for a national interest waiver pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion , grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national 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
Analysis
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree
With the instant motion, the Petitioner resubmits her April 2005 diploma fromOUniversity. This diploma states that she completed a "one year course of studies" and received a "Master's degree" in Public Administration. In addition, she resubmits the December 201 7 "credential evaluation report" from USCES, LLC stating that her "Archival Certificate - Master's Degree in Public Administration, issued by the I t' in April 2005 is the equivalent of a "Master's Degree in Public Administration awarded by regionally accredited universities in the United States."
In our previous decisions, we noted that that the aforementioned evaluation from USCES did not specify the number of semesters the Petitioner completed or the number of academic credits she was awarded. This evaluation also did not list the educational documents fromc=JUniversity that the evaluator reviewed in reaching his conclusion. For example, the evaluation stated that it was based onan"ArchivalCertificate"from"the~----------------~·" Accordingly, the record did not show that the credentials reviewed by the evaluator were the same educational deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
In announcing this new rramework. we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter ofNew York State Department of Transportation. 22 T&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01).
See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. for elaboration on these three prongs.
Dhanasar p. 3 documents that were submitted to the record in this case. The Petitioner was informed that she had not resolved these ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-592 (BIA 1988).
On motion, the Petitioner requests that we accept her diploma fromOUniversity because USCES "confirm[ed] it is the equivalent of U.S. Ma[s]ter['s] Degree with all the credits completed to receive the degree," but she has not identified any new facts supported by documentary evidence to meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. Nor has she presented information or evidence resolving the ambiguities discussed above. As explained in our previous decisions, because the USCES evaluation did not adequately explain its conclusion that the Petitioner's foreign diploma is equivalent to a United States degree as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A), it is insufficient to establish her eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
B. Exceptional Ability
The Petitioner's motion repeats previous arguments that she satisfies at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). As discussed below, our review ofthe documentation provided on motion does not show that she meets at least three criteria.
In our prior decisions, we concluded that the Petitioner had satisfied only one regulatory criterion: 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). With regard to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) and (E), the Petitioner's current motion to reo en contends that her membe~ship in the l ISchool meets those criteria.) She offers a website screenshot from .======~======;---------'Not eligible at the time of filing
~ ---------'listing Bulgarians who are members ofthel IAs noted in our prior decision, the Petitioner'sl Imembership post-dates the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time o f filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b)(1 ). Accordingly, the documentation offered on motion does not establish that the Petitioner meets at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and that she has achieved the level of expertise required for exceptional ability classification.Exceptional ability not established
C. National Interest Waiver
The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. As noted in our prior decisions, in order to qualify for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner must first show that she qualifies for classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. Furthermore, we explained in our decisions that she had not met the requisitethreeprongssetforthintheDhanasaranalyticalframework. Onmotion,thePetitionerdoesnot offernewfactsorevidencerelevanttoourfindings. Instead,thePetitionerresubmitsaletterfroni I ~---~Ithat we previously considered in our decision denying the Petitioner's fourth motion to reopen. In addition to not establishing the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification, the aforementioned letter does not render her eligible for a national interest waiver under the framework set forth in Dhanasar.
She previously submitted a July 2017 ce1iificate stating that she "has attained alumni status fro111I ISchool bysuccessfullycompletingthe14th Sessionofthel~~-----~--~--------~t
Conclusion
The evidence provided in support ofthe motion to reopen does not overcome the grounds underlying our previous decision. The Petitioner has not established eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. Furthermore, as the Petitioner has not met the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.