dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16965296 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 20, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
A self-petitioning athlete seeks second preference immigrant classification as an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 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). 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 of a job offer and thus ofa labor certification. 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Nebraska Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that he qualifies for classification as an advanced degree professional or an individual of 
exceptional ability . In addition, the Director determined that the record did not establish eligibility 
under any of the Dhanasar prongs. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the 
Director erred in the decision . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification (emphasis added), 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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver .... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
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 of progressive 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. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
2 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016).1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as matter of discretion ,2 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 of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner did not assert that he is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
Director determined that the record did not establish that the Petitioner is an individual of exceptional 
ability. In our de nova review, we agree with the Director thatthe Petitioner has not established that he 
is an individual of exceptional ability and further conclude that the record does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner meets any of the six eligibility criteria. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
The Petitioner provided a Form ETA 750 Part B which stated that he studied physical education at the 
D Institute of Physical Culture from 1998 to 2002. The Petitioner also stated on the form that he 
studied law at the Tax and Legal Institute o~ ltrom 2003to 2005.4 Despite the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE) of his claimed education, the Petitioner did not provide any official academic record 
evidencing study at either of these institutions. The record does not show he has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to 
the area of exceptional abi I ity. 5 Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied th is criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s)from currentorformer employer(s) showing that the alien 
has at leastten years offull-timeexperience in the occupationforwhich he or she is being 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. However, in our review of the record, 
we question the evidence in support of this criterion. First, it is unclear in which specific occupation the 
Petitioner claims to have ten years of full-time experience. Although he stated on the Form 1-140 that his 
occupation is as an athlete, the record indicates that the Petitioner's experience is also as a coach, a team 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest wa iverto bed iscretionary in nature). 
3 See Dhanasar, 261 &N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on thesethreeprongs. 
4 As the Director noted in the decision, this education does not appear to be related to the claimed area of exceptional 
ability as an athlete. 
5 The record contains various certificates labeled "diploma," howeverthese documents were issued by athletic competition 
organizers and are not official academic records. 
3 
captain, and a referee. Next, we note that very few, if any, documents are from current or former 
employer(s). Further, none of the documents state that the experience the Petitioner gained was full-time. 
We reviewed the reference letter from the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports ofl I as well 
as the reference letter from the Judo Federation o~ I Although the letters appear to be written 
by independent authors, they are both dated on the same day and both authors use identical structure and 
phrases to describe the Petitioner's history. The authors state that the Petitioner began the sports of 
sambo6 and judo at the age of six, that he became a judo champion at age eighteen, and that he has since 
built his own judo sports club where he trains more than 200 children and teenagers. Here we note again 
that it is unclear whether the Petitioner's claimed experience comes from being a judo athlete or from 
being a judo coach, among other roles.7 
Although the Petitioner may have begun practicing the sport at the age of six, the record as a whole, and 
these letters in particular, do not suggest that the Petitioner performed this sport as an occupation when 
he was a child. Even once he reached the age of eighteen and began winning competitions, neither the 
record nor the letters substantiate a finding that he gained fu II-time experience in the occupation. For 
instance, the record contains insufficient evidence to conclude when, or even if, he became a professional 
athlete paid to compete in the sport as his full-time occupation. While we acknowledgethatthe Petitioner 
has been a long-standing participant in the sport, this alone does not satisfy the requirements of this 
criterion. Because sports may be played at any age and with varying degrees of time commitment and 
competition, it is insufficient simply to evidence his participation in the sport. The Petitioner must clearly 
define how his participation, and thus the experience he gained, constituted a full-time occupation. The 
record, as it currently stands, is not sufficient to satisfy th is criterion. 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) 
The Petitioner did not submit evidence indicating that a license or certification is required to practice the 
profession or occupation of being an athlete. Although we reviewed the document labeled "international 
license" from the International Sambo Federation and the "Certificate No. 311" issued by the "Head of 
sports and tourism sector of the Youth affairs, sports and tourism Department ofl [" 
(capitalization errors in theoriginaO, neither of these documents containsadate of issuance and the record 
contains no explanation concerning the purpose of such documents. There is no indication that these 
documents are licenses to practice the profession or certifications for a particular profession or occupation. 
It seems that, at most, these documents could be construed as identification cards to access a particular 
athletic event or function. Th is conclusion is supported by the fact that Certificate No. 311 does not state 
what sport the certificate is for and it also contains instructions that it "shall be returned upon termination 
of the function." If th is document were a license to practice the profession or certification for a particular 
profession or occupation, we would not expect it expire at the end of a particular event or function. In 
addition, we question the credibility of the document as it contains a validity period through 2017. As 
the Petitioner was born in 1980, it appears incongruous that a youth affairs department wou Id issue him 
a document valid through to an age of thirty-seven.8 
6 Samba is a martial art that originated in the former Soviet Union in the 1920s. 
7 Notably, the record contains no corroborating evidence of the Petitioner's sports club, how many youths attend the club and 
have been trained, or when the Petitioner begrn the judo sports club. 
8 At the time ofthis petition's filing, the Petitioner was over thirty-eight years old and the Certificate No. 311 was no longer 
valid. 
4 
The record includes a copy of the Petitioner's International Judo Federation Official Identification 
Card, which does not contain an issuance date, and which expired in December 2016, prior to the filing 
of this petition. Therefore, this is not evidence of a license or certification at the time of filing. Even 
if it had been valid at the time off iling, such evidence would still be insufficient, as the Petitioner has 
not explained how an identification card is a license or certification. 
In general, the Petitioner appears to confuse the term "certificate" with the term "certification." The 
record contains numerous certificates of participation in athletic competitions, but these certificates of 
participation are not certifications for a particular profession or to practice the sport. For instance, 
although the Petitioner asserted that the titles "Master of Sport" and the "Honored Master of Sport'' are 
licenses, such titles are not provided to every athlete who participates in the sport and therefore they are 
not certifications for the profession. Based upon the information provided about the issuance of "Master 
of Sport" and "Honored Master of Sport" designations, these documents do not confer official permission 
to practice the profession or certify an athlete in a particular occupation as much as they are an 
acknowledgement that an athlete has reached a particular level in a sport. 
Finally, the record contains a certificate from the International Olympic Committee acknowledging that 
in 2005, the Petitioner took part in a nine-day technical course for judo coaches. Although the certificate 
states that he "has taken part" in the course, the record does not contain evidence that the Petitioner 
finished the course, that he is qualified to be a judo coach as a result of this single course, or that any 
certification or license is required to be a judo coach. As already stated, the Petitioner identified on the 
Form 1-140 that his occupation is as an athlete. Therefore, a technical course for judo coaching appears 
not to have any bearing on his ability to practice judo as an athlete. 
Accordingly, the evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
The Petitioner did not submit evidence of his salary or other remuneration for services. Therefore, he 
has not satisfied th is criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
The Petitioner claimed that he has been a member of tha I National Judo Team since 1998 and 
that from 2003 until the present, he has served as the team leader. It is unclear from the record how the 
Petitioner maintains membership on thel I National Judo Team since he has relocated to the 
United States, or whether his membership continues in perpetuity. By contrast, the President of the 
National Judo Federation of thel I stated that the Petitioner became a member of the 
I I National Judo Team in 2003 and that he served as the captain from 2003 to 2012. Not only is 
the record unclear on the difference between a team leader and a team captain, but the dates the Petitioner 
provided for his membership differ from those provided by the President. The Petitioner must resolve 
these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 
19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the 
reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit 
5 
Id. Aside from the inconsistent assertions he and the President made concerning his membership, the 
record contains little independent, objective evidence to corroborate the Petitioner's status as a member 
of the team. 
In his letter, the President also explained the qualifications required to be a member of the team and in so 
doing, used regulatory language setting forth eligibility criteria for individuals of extraordinaryability.9 
The author stated thatthe Petitioner's achievements have been judged by nationally and internationally 
recognized experts and that the Petitioner has won nationally and internationally recognized awards. 
Neither the letter nor the record contains credible and specific qualifications for becoming a member 
of the team, but instead includes a recitation of a portion of the criteria for another U.S. immigrant 
classification. Counsel asserted thatthe Petitioner's membership on the I ~ National Judo Team 
satisfies this criterion, however counsel also repeated the regulatory language for the extraordinary ability 
immigrant classification without identifying the specific achievements that enabled the Petitioner to 
qualify for the team. Taken together, we question the credibility of the statements made by both the 
President of the National Judo Federation and by counsel. 
In addition, the record does not establish that the national judo team is a professional association. Rather, 
the team appears more akin to an athletic club managed by a larger association. Counsel stated that the 
I IN ational Judo Federation is managed by thel I Judo Federation," which is a member 
of the International Judo Federation.10 Counsel then concluded that "[t]herefore,I I Judo 
Federation is definitely a professional association" and that this is sufficient to establish the Petitioner's 
membership in thel IJudo Federation. However, the record contains statements that the 
Petitioner belongs to thel I National Judo Team, not that he is a member of thel I Judo 
Federation. Even if the statements concerning the Petitioner's membership on the I I National 
Judo Team were credible and consistent, this would not establish that the team is a professional 
association that would satisfy the Petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. 
Returning to the Petitioner's expired International Judo Federation Official ldentif ication Card, as 
explained above regarding evidence related to a license or certification, this identification card is not 
evidence of membership at the time of filing. Even if it had been valid at the time of filing, it would 
still be insufficient to satisfy eligibility under this criterion because the Petitioner has not explained 
how an identification card confers membership. 
Accordingly, the evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
9 An individual of extraordinary ability is a different U.S. immigrant classification and is not the classification under which 
this petition was filed. Individuals of extraordinary ability must meet at least three of ten criteria set forth in 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h), as opposed to three of six criteria for an individual of exceptional ability under8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1<). 
The Petitioner previously filed lo rand was denied cla ,li~at; n as an ind ivid I ti of extraord inal]/ a bi lib, 
10 The President of the National Judo Federation of the Isa carifirmed that th~ I National 
Judo Federation is managed by National Judo Federation ofth I 
6 
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) 
The Petitioner presented numerous certificates of participation, attendance, and victory in various athletic 
competitions. These certificates do not establish achievement or contribution in the field of judo, 
samba, al I wresting as much as they establish participation in sporting events and a willingness 
to compete.11 Aside from the evidence relating to the Olympics, a competition well known for having 
qualifying trials, much of the Petitioner's evidence of his performance in competitions is not 
accompanied by documentation that there were any required minimum qualifications for participation 
in the events. Nor does the record contain sufficient evidence to establish that these events were 
exclusive such that acceptance into them would signify a level of achievement or contribution in the 
field .12 It is, therefore, not apparent from the record that the Petitioner's participation in these events 
was due to any contribution or achievement in the field. Further, the record does not establish that the 
Petitioner, who was nearly forty years old at the time of filing this petition in 2019, is a current athlete. 
According to his personal statement, he last competed in 2015 and the last time he won an award for 
his athletic performance in a competition was in 2013.13 
The Petitioner emphasized his titles of "Master of Sport of International Class of thel 
I Ion Judo" and "Master of Sport of International Class of thel lonl~~ 
Wrestling," both of which the record indicates he won in 2003, as well as his title of "Honored Master of 
Sport of the~------~on Judo," which the record indicates he won in 2017. These awards 
are also loosely referred to in the record as "Master of Sport," "Master of Sport ofl I' and 
"Honored Master of Sport ofl I' 
An undated letter from the President of thel I Judo Federation provided the various 
requirements for awarding the title of "Master of Sport ofl I in judo," which are all based on 
ran kings after qualifying competitions.14 In addition, the President stated in his letter that the "Master 
of Sport ofl I' is awarded in accordance with the "Order of the Ministry for Physical Culture 
and Sports of th~~~------~' By c
1
ntrast, the Petitioner asserted that the "titles of Master 
of Sport oflnternational Class in judo an Wrestling" are: 
11 As previously explained, not all of the certificates clearly indicate athletic participation, as opposed to coaching or referee 
participation, or mere attendance. 
12 We acknowledged the undated letter from the President ofthd!Judo Federation identifyingthel I judo 
rankin s stem, but this information has little bearing on th~s, qualifications, and competitions outside of 
We ac nowledge a 2016 article in al I newspaper that stated the Petitioner won the 2016 ~I __ __. 
Championship held in Florida. The Petitioner did not provide any U.S. articles featuring his victory in this event, nor did 
he list this event in his personal statement. In review of the event resu Its online, the website indicates that the competition 
was for a 1 I 2016" and that a !though the Petitioner is listed as a participant, the resu Its do 
not indicate that he ranked or laced, let alone won an hin . For more information, visit the International Judo Federation 
site at https://www.ijf.or _ _ _ _ (last visited 
Sep. 20, 2021). Therefore, we question the credibility of the newspaper reportfrom,.........,~____. 
14 It is unclear from the punctuation and wording of the letter whether an athlete must meet each requirement listed or only 
one of them. Further, it does not appear as though an athlete must win only first place in order to qualifyforthe title, but 
that placing up to 6th place in certain competitions is sufficient. 
7 
[O]fficial titles issued b the Committee for Youth, sports and Tourism under the 
Government of th the official and the highest governing body of 
martial arts in ,___ __ _.to those athletes who have attained an exceptional level of 
mastery in their particular sport, as evidenced by success in major national or international 
tournaments. In order to be awarded "Master of Spmt in Judo and I Wrestling", a 
I !wrestler must achieve one or more first-place finishes in national championships 
and receives a recommendation from thQwrestling and Judo Federations. 
(errors in the original). Here, the Petitioner's assertions differ from the President's, both in terms of who 
issues the title, as well as whether first-place is required to qualify. In examining the 2017 award itself, 
the issuing body is listed as the "Committee for Youth Affairs, Sports and Tourism under the Government 
of thd t whereas the 2003 awards were issued by the "Committee of Physical 
Education and Sport under the Government of the~------~' Due to the varying titles 
provided for the awards, the varying titles of the issuing bodies, along with the varying explanations for 
how an athlete qualifies for the title, we question the credibility of these awards overall. Furthermore, we 
conclude that even if this evidence was credible, it would not establish eligibilityunderthis criterion. The 
evidence remains insufficient to conclude that the titles are recognition for achievements and significant 
contributions to the industry or field. For instance, the record contains little evidence that the recognition 
for receiving such a title is an achievement for the field of judo, as opposed to a personal achievement. 
In other words, while the Petitioner may have received recognition for personal achievement as a judo 
athlete, it is not apparent that the Petitioner has achieved anything for or contributed anything to the field 
of judo. Furthermore, the Petitioner has submitted little evidence to explain which specific competitions 
enabled him to receive these awards. Moreover, we do not have information on the difference between 
the titles of "Master of Sport" and "Honored Master of Sport" or why he earned these awards fourteen 
years apart from each other. Finally, the Petitioner presented little evidence showing that these awards 
are recognized beyond the presenting institution or indicative of influence on the field as a whole. 
Turning to the letters of recommendation, we observe that although the authors offered general praise 
concerning the Petitioner's talents and accomplishments, none of the letters persuasively establishes 
that the Petitioner received recognition for achievements or significantly contributed to the field. Most 
authors did not identify specific achievements or contributions, but instead repeated general phrases 
that he has won awards and competitions. One author described the Petitioner's judo coaching as 
extraordinary, but he did not provide specific examples or detail explaining why, nor did the author 
indicate that the Petitioner's coaching has contributed to the field of judo, as opposed to only his 
individual coaching students. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific 
contributions or their impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756. Inc. v. US. Atty Gen .. 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in 
immigration benefits adjudications). The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters so asto determine 
whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 500, n.2 
(BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
Other claims made by the authors of the letters call into question the credibility of the letters. For 
example, one author claimed that the Petitioner created a federation of judo in the city o~ I, a 
claim which is not substantiated by any evidence in the record. Another example is the letter from the 
Head Coach of a mixed martial arts gym, which contains a claim that the Petitioner is a highly 
8 
decorated Tae Kwon Do specialist. Other parts of the record do not mention the Petitioner as an athlete 
in Tae Kwon Do and we question the accuracy of this statement. In addition, this author used 
regulatory language setting forth eligibility criteria for individuals of extraordinary ability, which 
involves a different analysis from that which is used for individuals of exceptional ability, and which 
is not the classification under which this petition was filed. The letter does not appear to contain the 
independent opinion of the author, but instead includesa recitation of the criteria for another immigrant 
classification. We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Cornrn'r 1988). However, where an 
opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to 
acceptor may give less weight to that evidence. Id. Here, the letters are of diminished probative value 
due to insufficient explanations and evidence to support the authors' conclusions as well as the 
unsupported recitation of regulations concerning a different immigrant classification. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of published articles about judo competitions, some of which 
reference him and multiple other competitors. Although several news articles and one radio broadcast 
reference him, the reports largely focus on the athletic event as a whole, rather than focusing on the 
Petitioner specifically or exclusively. As the Director noted, the readership and reach of these 
publications has not been established outside of their own self-reported statements. Furthermore, the 
apparent inaccurate reporting in al " I newspaper concerning the Petitioner's victory in a 
competition in Florida undermines the credibility of the publications as a whole. Based upon the 
evidence of record, it has not been established that the Petitioner is recognized for achievements or 
contributions in his industry as a result of this publicity. 
For all these reasons, the evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied this 
criterion. 
Summary 
The record does not support the finding that the Petitioner has met any of the six regulatory criteria for 
exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii).15 Therefore, the Petitioner has not established eligibility 
as an individual of exceptional abi I ity under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. As previously outlined, 
the Petitioner must show that he is either an advanced degree professional or possesses exceptional 
ability before we reach the question of the national interest waiver. The Petitioner has not shown that 
he meets the regulatory criteria for classification as an individual of exceptional ability and he has not 
asserted that he is an advanced degree professional. Accordingly, the issue of the national interest 
waiver is moot.16 The waiver is availableonlyto foreignworkerswhootherwisequalifyfor classification 
under section 203(b)(2){A) of the Act. Because the documentation in the record does not establish 
15 When a petitioner has satisfied at least three of the six criteria, a final merits determination concerning the Petitioner's 
eligibility is still required perthetwo-partadjudication framework established in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 {9th Cir. 
2010). In the final merits analysis, the quality oftheevidencemustbe evaluated. Here, a final merits analysis is not required 
because the Petitioner has not established that he has met at leastthreeof the six criteria. 
16 Because the identified reasons ford ismissal are dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the arguments regarding eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
(1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings onissuesthe decision of which is unnecessary totheresults 
they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on 
appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
9 
eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, further analysis of eligibility under the framework 
outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or as an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 l&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10