PetitionLens
All decisions
RemandedNational Interest Waiver · Appeal

Manufacturing optimization consultant

Engineering · decided 2026-05-05 · SCOPS · MAY052026_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 decided
    The Director's denial rested on this
    SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification. p. 1
  • 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

Upon de novo review, we will withdraw SCOPS' decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • We will remand the matter so that SCOPS can more fully address the evidence relating to the Petitioner's academic degree and his post-baccalaureate experience. See in text
  • ORDER: SCOPS' decision is withdrawn. See in text
  • The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. See in text
Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (2)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

  • Instead, SCOPS noted the Petitioner's submission of a credential evaluation and then, without further discussion or explanation, concluded that "the petitioner does not have" "a bachelor's degree plus five ( 5) years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, a master's degree, or the foreign equivalent." See in text (p. 2)
  • Instead, SCOPS noted the Petitioner's submission of a credential evaluation and then, without further discussion or explanation, concluded that "the petitioner does not have" "a bachelor's degree plus five ( 5) years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, a master's degree, or the foreign equivalent." p. 2

Full decision

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

Highlighted: Outcome (4) Tagged objection (1)Matter of X citation
Decision header
Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · In Re: 42722552 Date: MAY 5, 2026 · Appeal of Service Center Operations (SCOPS) Decision · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver)

The Petitioner, a manufacturing optimization consultant, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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. SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.

The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will withdraw SCOPS' decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis.

To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an alien 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 ofprogressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).

Where available, evidence of qualifying experience shall be in the form of letters from current or former employers and shall include the name, address, and title ofthe writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l).

The Petitioner does not claim eligibility as an alien of exceptional ability, and he does not claim to hold an advanced degree. Instead, the Petitioner claims eligibility as a member of the professions with p. 2 I a bachelor's degree and five or more years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, equivalent to a master's degree under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).

The Petitioner submitted a translated transcript from.______________, in Brazil, listing coursework from 2009 through 2013, and a diploma indicating that the Petitioner earned a Grau de Bacherel (bachelor's degree) in industrial engineering on May 30, 2014. A credential evaluation indicates that the degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor of science degree in industrial engineering. The Petitioner pursued graduate studies after 2014, but neither claimed nor established that these studies resulted in the awarding of an advanced degree. Therefore, the Petitioner must establish at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty between May 30, 2014, when he received his bachelor's degree, and August 9, 2024, when he filed the petition.

On his resume, the Petitioner claimed to have worked for manufacturers of building materials in the Iin South America. S ecificall the Petitioner stated that he worked as a lean manufacturing engineer for Brazil, from May 2014 to February 2018, and in various capacities fo .________________,Argentina, from March 2018 to February 2022. Since February 2022, the Petitioner has been in the United States in various nonimmigrant classifications that do not convey employment authorization.

Various managers at I I provided letters attesting to and describing the Petitioner's employment between 2014 and 2022.

In the denial decision, SCOPS did not acknowledge these letters or explain why they do not adequately meet the applicable requirements. Instead, SCOPS noted the Petitioner's submission of a credential evaluation and then, without further discussion or explanation, concluded that "the petitioner does not have" "a bachelor's degree plus five ( 5) years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, a master's degree, or the foreign equivalent."Degree not shown to be a U.S. advanced degree equivalent SCOPS then concluded that "the petitioner is ineligible for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree." SCOPS did not address the merits of the Petitioner's claim of eligibility for the national interest waiver.

We agree with the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that SCOPS did not adequately address the evidence that the Petitioner submitted to support his claim of eligibility as a member of the professions with a bachelor's degree and post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to a master's degree. We note that section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(32), includes engineers in the definition of "profession."

We will remand the matter so that SCOPS can more fully address the evidence relating to the Petitioner's academic degree and his post-baccalaureate experience. If SCOPS concludes that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, then SCOPS should also address the merits of the national interest waiver claim.

ORDER: SCOPS' decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis.