dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 30, 2023 In Re: 28089817 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business administrator, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional, 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 the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for the underlying second preference classification as an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability, nor did he establish eligibility for a national interest 
waiver under the framework outlined in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 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 a preponderance 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner requests that we not consider his eligibility for the second preference EB-2 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. He explains that the Director misconstrued the 
purpose of his evidence and arguments relating to the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(i i). Specifically, the Petitioner states, "I request again, as I had previously requested in 
the response to RFE, that only the criteria that make up the category for a professional and 
advanced degree to be considered for eligibility purposes ... (emphasis supplied by the Petitioner)." 
Accordingly, we do not further discuss the Petitioner 's eligibility as an individual of exceptional 
ability. 1 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision regarding the specific issue of eligibility for the EB-2 
classification as an advanced degree professional. See Matter of Burbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affuming the decision below has been "universa lly accepted by every other circuit that 
1 Even if we were to analyze his eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, we would nevertheless agree with the 
Director that the evidence provided does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's eligibility for this classification. 
has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) Uoining eight circuit 
courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
The Petitioner reasserts on appeal that he qualifies as an advanced degree professional and directs our 
attention to evidence he previously submitted, including documentation that he earned the foreign 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in May 2021, as well as the A1iicles of Incorporation for his 
Brazilian-based business. 
The Petitioner provided documentation stating that he finished his academic courses in June 2000 but 
did not graduate or receive his diploma until May 2021. Without further explanation for this 21-year 
gap between his courses and his graduation, it is unclear whether the progressive post-baccalaureate 
should be calculated from June 2000 onward or from May 2021 onward.2 Even considering June 2000 
as the date in which he earned his baccalaureate degree, we still conclude the evidence does not 
sufficiently establish the Petitioner gained five years of post-baccalaureate experience in business 
administration. 
The Petitioner relies heavily upon the Articles of Incorporation to establish that he possesses the five 
years' experience required for meeting the advanced degree professional classification. He points to 
the first paragraph of the fifth clause, which lists the general duties of the business' "administrator" 
role. While we acknowledge these duties, the Petitioner has not explained how he performed them 
within the context of his business. The record does not include detailed examples of how he carried 
out these functions, the specific responsibilities he managed when fulfilling this role, or how his 
experience has been progressive. Rather, as the Petitioner noted, the Articles of Incorporation contain 
"basic data of the business." Simply assigning oneself the title of "managing paiiner" or 
"administrator" does not explain what relevant experience the Petitioner gained in executing that role. 
Accordingly, this document is insufficient to establish the Petitioner has any relevant experience. 
The letters from former clients include the general years in which the Petitioner provided services to 
specific clients. The letters do not demonstrate how many days the Petitioner worked within the 
specified years, nor do the clients explain the experience the Petitioner gained by working with each 
of them, respectively. 
As the record does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, a 
threshold requirement, the Petitioner cannot demonstrate eligibility for anational interest waiver. Further 
analysis of eligibility under the Dhanasar framework would, therefore, serve no meaningful purpose. 
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's remaining appellate arguments. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise 
ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The May 2021 graduation date necessarily negates gaining post-baccalaureate experience totaling at least five years. 
2