dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Anti-Corruption And Investigations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 20, 2024 In Re: 29549547 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an anti-corruption and investigations specialist, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, or, in the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. 
See 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, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). 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. The Director concluded that the record 
did not demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification requires that the 
individual' s services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or aforeign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor' s degree.1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
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: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other 
institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing 
that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation 
for which he or she is being sought; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession 
or occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other renumeration for 
services, which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) Evidence of recognition 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). 2 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows that the 
petitioner is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered 
in the field. 3 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination): see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step 
analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of evidence 
for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality 
of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 376. 
2 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual 's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
3 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 
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 eligibility for 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 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion,4 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as an anti-corruption and investigations specialist 
for a pol ice department. 
A. Member of Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Director's decision did not indicate whether the Petitioner established her eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 immigrant classification. However, in a request for evidence notice, the Director 
stated that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. Upon de nova review, the record does not show that the Petitioner is eligible for 
the underlying classification as an advanced degree professional. 
The record includes a diploma indicating the Petitioner was granted the title of lawyer from 
in Colombia in June 2017. Although the Petitioner included a 
letter from the university stating she attended the university "from FIRST to TENTH SEMESTER of 
LAW" with the dates of her attendance, the record does not include evidence showing her academic 
credentials are the foreign equivalent degree above that of a U.S. bachelor's degree. Also, the record 
does not demonstrate the Petitioner has a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
followed by five years of post-baccalaureate experience. 
The Petitioner has not established that she has a U.S. degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that 
of a bachelor's degree, or a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of post-baccalaureate experience in her specialty. Therefore, we withdraw the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner is eligible for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions possessing an advanced degree. 
4 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
Circuit Court in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
3 
B. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
Because the Director determined that the Petitioner established her eligibility as a member of the 
professions possessing an advanced degree, the Director did not evaluate her claim that she qualifies 
as an individual of exceptional ability. 
The Petitioner claimed that she meets four of the six evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii), specifically the criteria for academic record at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii){A), ten years 
of experience at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), license to practice the occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C), and recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the Petitioner does not 
meet at least three of the regulatory criteria required for classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability. 
An official academic record showing that the individual has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution 
of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner submitted a copy of her diploma from 
I I in Colombia granting her the title of lawyer. However, the record does not include an official 
academic record from the university, as required under the criterion. Therefore, the Petitioner does 
not meet eligibility under the criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that 
the individual has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for 
which he or she is being sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner maintains she worked for two employers having obtained more 
than ten years of experience in her occupation. The record includes a letter from the Attorney General 
tori Iindicating that from January 1, 2012, to April 6, 2021, the Petitioner 
worked as a criminalistic research assistant, a research technician I, an investigator technician, and a 
research technician 11. Although the letter indicates her job duties relate to her intended occupation, 
it does not indicate whether her work was full-time, as required under the plain language of the 
criterion. 
The Petitioner also claims meeting the criterion based on her work with
I I in Columbia. The record includes recommendation letters from her previous 
colleagues at attesting to her professional knowledge. However, the letters lack sufficient details 
of her dates of employment and do not indicate whether her position was full-time, as required by the 
criterion. The Petitioner also submitted certificates from which commend her work on specific 
projects. Such certificates do not meet the plain language of the criterion since they are not letters 
from detailing her dates of employment or whether her work was full-time, as required under the 
criterion. 
Therefore, the record does not demonstrate the Petitioner has at least ten years of full-time experience 
in the relevant occupation. 
4 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner maintains she received a license to practice law in Colombia, and 
she has "certifications from professional organizations and universities for her works as an exceptional 
[a]nti-[c]orruption and [i]nvestigations [s]pecialist in her field of expertise." 
For her license to practice law, the Petitioner submitted her lawyer professional card issued by the 
Judicial Branch of the Superior Council of the Judiciary for the Republic of Colombia. However, her 
professional card does not indicate it is a license to practice her occupation as an anti-corruption and 
investigations specialist. Also, the record does not include evidence explaining the significance of the 
professional card, nor does it indicate that it serves as a license or certification for her occupation as 
an anti-corruption and investigations specialist. 
The Petitioner also submitted certificates to show she completed training courses relating to her work 
as a detective and to extend her studies in the field of anti-corruption and investigations. Although the 
certificates show the Petitioner completed coursework relating to work as an anti-corruption and 
investigations specialist, it does not show that the Petitioner has a license to practice her profession or 
that she received certification for her occupation as an anti-corruption and investigations specialist. 
Since the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has a license to practice the profession or 
certification for her occupation, she has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of recognition 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). 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner submitted letters from her former colleagues and news articles 
maintaining they show "the recognition she has received from professionals and experts within her 
field of expertise who recognize [her] contributions to the field .... " The letters are from prosecutors 
and investigators who previously worked with the Petitioner in Colombia. The letters attest to her 
being a committed and knowledgeable investigator whose work supported successful investigations 
and aided in criminal convictions. They also detail the policing and investigative work the Petitioner 
provided for specific criminal cases. Accompanying the letters are news articles describing the 
criminal convictions for the specific criminal cases. 
While the record shows the Petitioner is aprofessional and skilled criminal investigator, and her former 
colleagues value the investigative work she provided to them for criminal investigations, it does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to 
her industry or field, as required under the criterion. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
she meets this criterion. 
Since the Petitioner has not established that she meets at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) through (F), we need not conduct a final merits analysis to determine 
whether the evidence in its totality shows that she is recognized as having a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 
5 
204.5(k)(2). Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate and conclude 
that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the recognition required for 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
C. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established her eligibility for the underlying EB-2 
classification, and she is therefore not eligible for a waiver of that classification's job offer 
requirement. However, we will discuss whether the Petitioner demonstrated a waiver of the labor 
certification would be in the national interest, the basis for the Director's decision. 
The Director found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit and is of national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. The Director further 
found that the Petitioner did not establish that she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor 
under Dhanasar's second prong, and that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to 
waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification under Dhanasar's third prong. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that a waiver of the labor certification would be in the national interest.5 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be 
demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as an anti-corruption and investigations specialist 
for a police department. The Petitioner states she would "assist and enhance the crime investigation 
and evidence gathering efforts of U.S. investigation agencies" with a goal to work "to identify and 
prosecute criminal activities and corruption" and to contribute "to building a safer environment for 
American citizens." Evidence in the record establishes that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, and we withdraw the Director's determination to the contrary. 
With respect to the national importance of her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner argues on appeal that 
the Director did not provide "a fair and thorough review" of the evidence in the record, including 
industry reports and media articles; her business plan; an opinion letter; and U.S. government 
initiatives. She argues that her business plan details her "employment activities and the direct benefits 
of these activities" taking issue with the Director's conclusion that she "did not 'provide specific 
insight as to what she intends to do as an [a]nti-[c]orruption and [i]nvestigations [s]pecialist in the 
criminal investigations field."' (emphasis omitted). She argues that her anti-corruption and 
investigation techniques would "benefit the general public and create a safer environment for 
Americans." Upon de nova review, we find the Petitioner did not demonstrate by a preponderance of 
the evidence that her endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar 's first prong, as 
discussed below. 
5 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of evidence. 
The Petitioner's business plan maintains that her work "will create numerous benefits to the [United 
States], including promoting good governance, economic growth, the rule oflaw, and social justice." 
The business plan explains that her work would benefit the U.S. economy since a reduction in crime 
would increase the value of local properties and attract investment in cities. The social welfare benefits 
described in the plan include increased safety and security; promoting cooperation between police, 
government agencies, judicial systems, and private investigators; solving international crime schemes 
relating to human and drug trafficking; transferring her knowledge to others in the workforce; and 
training and development of crisis management prevention and security policies for employees. 
To demonstrate her proposed endeavor has the potential to realize the asserted economic and social 
welfare benefits, the business plain details her academic credentials, her professional training, her 
previous employment, and her professional achievements. Based on her professional experience and 
training, she contends the she would "be able to help combat and prevent crime at both the local and 
national levels.... By working to combat and prevent crime, the Petitioner will contribute to a more 
just and equitable society, one in which everyone can live and work without fear. This, in turn, will 
have a positive impact on the national level, as it will promote a more stable and cohesive society 
overall." The business plan states, "Her expe1iise in investigating and prosecuting complex conuption 
cases involving public officials and private individuals will significantly benefit U.S. law enforcement 
agencies. [The Petitioner's] extensive knowledge of Colombian law and her experience working 
within the Colombian legal system will be particularly valuable to U.S. law enforcement agencies 
seeking to investigate and prosecute cross-border conuption cases." 
However, the Petitioner's reliance on her academic credentials, professional experience, and 
achievements to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor is misplaced. Her 
academic credentials, professional experience, and achievements relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the 
Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. To evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. See id. at 889. 
In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. The record 
does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the field of 
criminal investigations, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking may have national 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, 
such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. The 
7 
evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's work as an anti-corruption and investigations specialist 
for a police department would impact the criminal investigations field more broadly. 
To show the national importance of her proposed endeavor, the business plan also provides an 
extensive market and industry analysis of the criminal investigations field, including the importance 
of the police investigation industry to law enforcement preventing and solving crimes; the job duties 
of investigators; the shortage of skilled investigators; the benefits of private investigators to 
businesses; company use of private investigators for corporate corruption and insurance fraud; impacts 
of drug and human trafficking, laws related to public corruption; and benefits of anti-corruption 
inspectors in the United States. The Petitioner also argues her proposed endeavor's national 
importance based on it being aligned with U.S. government initiatives related to U.S. national security. 
Emphasizing U.S. government policies related to anti-corruption, the Petitioner maintains she "will 
rely on her experience and expertise in the field to leverage her skills to contribute to the development 
and implementation of strategies that will modernize and coordinate the U.S. government's efforts to 
fight corruption, curb illicit finances, and assign responsibility to corrupt actors." 
However, the Petitioner's general claims that her anti-corruption and investigations specialist work 
for a police department will benefit the economy and the social welfare of the United States has not 
been established through independent and objective evidence. The Petitioner's statements are not 
sufficient to demonstrate her endeavor has the potential to provide economic and social welfare 
benefits to the United States. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Beyond general assertions, she has 
not demonstrated that the work she proposes to undertake as an anti-corruption and investigations 
specialist offers innovations that contribute to advancements in her industry or otherwise has broader 
implications for her field. The economic and social welfare benefits that the Petitioner claims depend 
on numerous factors, and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between her 
proposed work as an anti-corruption and investigations specialist for a police department and the 
claimed economic and social welfare benefits to the United States. 
The Petitioner further claims on appeal that the national importance of her proposed endeavor is 
evidenced in industry reports and articles. She argues that the reports and articles show that her work 
would have "implications beyond her local community," and they document "the potential 
significance of U.S. advances in [the Petitioner's] proposed implementation of [a]nti-[c]orruption 
strategies". The reports and articles relate to public, private, and community policing; combating 
public corruption; DNA evidence; fingerprint processing; ballistics; encryption; skilled labor shortage; 
forced labor; importance of data analysis on combating crime; ensuring integrity in U.S. infrastructure 
spending; insurance fraud; human rights practices; human and drug trafficking; effects of corruption 
on migration; counter-terrorism; fighting corruption; guide for international cooperation to recover 
U.S. assets; repeal of Dodd-Frank Act; U.S. government anti-corruption initiatives; expected growth 
of investigation services; and the shortage of skilled law enforcement professionals. 
We recognize the importance of the anti-corruption initiatives, the criminal investigations field, and 
related careers; however, merely working in the criminal investigations field as an anti-corruption and 
investigative specialist for a police department is insufficient to establish the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we noted that 
8 
"we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n undertaking may have 
national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular 
field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for 
instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. The industry reports and 
articles submitted do not discuss the broader implications of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to her 
field, or the claimed economic and social welfare impacts specifically attributable to the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner further argues the national importance of her proposed endeavor is evidenced with an 
opinion from a law professor with I Iin Massachusetts. The 
opinion includes an analysis of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stating, 
"[The Petitioner] will work in the United States in an area of substantial merit and national 
importance." The opinion focuses on the Petitioner's "extensive knowledge" with criminal 
investigations the United States which would benefit "the general public and create a safer 
environment for Americans." The opinion reiterates the potential benefits set out in the Petitioner's 
business plan, specifically "promoting transparency, accountability, and integrity in public 
institutions; creating a level playing field for businesses; promoting the rule of law and protecting 
individual rights and freedoms; and ensuring equal access to essential services." In support of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor having national importance, the opinion explains the importance of 
anti-corruption and investigations specialists to U.S. government agencies, such as the U.S. 
Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission . It also maintains that her 
proposed endeavor has "significant potential to employ U.S. workers and has other substantial positive 
economic effects" based on the expected demand for skilled professionals in the field. The opinion 
maintains her proposed endeavor "will broadly enhance societal welfare" based on anti-corruption and 
investigations specialists contributing "to reducing inequality and promoting equal opportunities." 
However, the opinion's focus on the need for anti-corruption and investigations specialists and how 
the Petitioner's professional experience makes her well positioned to help the industry with her 
professional skills does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific endeavor may have a prospective 
impact in her field. The opinion does not focus on the Petitioner's specific endeavor and it having a 
potential prospective impact on the U.S. economy or social welfare, or in the field of her proposed 
endeavor. Stating that her background in anti-corruption and criminal investigations would support 
an important industry and alleviate a shortage of workers in the criminal investigations industry is not 
sufficient to meet the "national importance" requirement under the Dhanasar framework . 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her employer to 
impact anti-corruption initiatives, the criminal investigations field, or any other industries or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The record does not 
suggest, for example, that the Petitioner's anti-corruption and investigations duties would meet the 
current demand for criminal investigators, address the national criminal investigations professional 
job shortage, or otherwise operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance contemplated 
by Dhanasar. The record does not support that the Petitioner's proposed work as an anti-corruption 
and investigations specialists with a police department stands to have wider implications in the field 
of criminal investigations. While we agree that anti-corruption initiatives and the field of criminal 
9 
investigations have significant merit, the evidence and arguments provided do not support a finding 
that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor has national importance. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding her eligibility under the second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. at 25 ("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 of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. at 526 n.7 (declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification. Also, 
the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Therefore, 
we find that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10