dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Filmmaking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 12, 2024 In Re: 28962813 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an audio-video editor, filmmaker, and producer, seeks the second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and an individual 
of exceptional ability. 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, concluding that the Petitioner was 
ineligible for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional or an individual of 
exceptional ability. She also determined a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor 
certification, was not in the national interest as a matter of discretion. 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 53 7, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
"Advanced degree" is defined as 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 of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent 
of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
"Profession" is defined as 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 into the occupation. 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). If these 
types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit 
comparable evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). Meeting at least three 
criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. We will then 
conduct a final merits determination to determine whether the evidence in its totality shows that they 
are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
field. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 r&N Dec. at 369 (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by 
the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality"). users 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. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit 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 r&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that users may, as 
matter of discretion, 1 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANAL YSrS 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director's "denial letter does not 
provide specific reasons for [the] determination[ s ]" regarding his ineligibility for the EB-2 
classification. We disagree. As noted, the Director first concluded in the denial that the Petitioner did 
not qualify for the EB-2 classification, either as a professional holding an advance degree or as an 
individual of exceptional ability. The Director identified and analyzed the evidence provided in 
support of these EB-2 avenues, discussed the collective shortcomings of the submitted evidence, and 
explained the reasons why the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 visa 
category. Notably, the Petitioner presents arguments on appeal alleging that the Director erred in 
making several of the detailed determinations in the denial. 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
When denying a petition, a director must fully explain the reasons for denial to allow a petitioner a 
fair opportunity to contest the decision and provide the AAO an opportunity for meaningful appellate 
review. Cf Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that the reasons for denying a 
motion must be clear to allow the affected party a meaningful opportunity to challenge the 
determination on appeal). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the Director did so 
here, and the Petitioner's allegations on appeal to the contrary are without merit. 
We also note that, on appeal, the Petitioner points to a sentence in the denial in which the Director 
states, "USCIS has evaluated the evidence on an individual basis and determined that the evidence 
does establish that the petitioner meets at least three of the six criteria found at 8 C.F.R. Section 
204.5(k)(3)(i)" ( emphasis added). The Petitioner then notes "[the decision] confusingly states USCIS 
does not find the petitioner to be an individual of exceptional ability." Based on our review of the 
decision it appears the Director's first sentence erroneously excludes "not"-i.e., it was intended to 
read, "the evidence does not establish .... " Because the Director fully discussed the deficiencies of 
the evidence of record regarding the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability­
not only in her denial order, but also in the request for evidence (RFE) she issued prior to the denial 
of the petition-we conclude that the Director made a harmless error which has no negative impact in 
the adjudication of this appeal. See generally Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330,350 n.5 (BIA 2021) 
( citing cases regarding harmless or scrivener's errors). 
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated his qualifications 
as an advanced degree professional or as an individual of exceptional ability. While we may not discuss 
every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
In order to show that a petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied 
by "[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States advanced degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Alternatively, a petitioner may present 
"[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer( s) 
showing that the [individual] has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in 
the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
Based on our review, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner does not possess either a foreign 
degree equivalent of a U.S. advanced degree or a foreign degree equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate 
degree with at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. Id. 
To qualify as an advanced degree professional, a petitioner relying on foreign education must have a 
single, foreign degree that equates to at least a U.S. baccalaureate degree. The regulations do not allow 
baccalaureate equivalents based on combinations of lesser educational credentials or of education and 
experience. See Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions, 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991) 
(stating that "both the Act and its legislative history make clear that, in order to .... have experience 
3 
equating to an advanced degree under the second [preference category], a [ noncitizen] must have at 
least a bachelor's degree") (emphasis added). 
The record reflects that in December 2010, the Petitioner earned a Titulo de Licenciado in physics 
from a university in Brazil. The academic records accompanying the Petitioner's certificate show that 
his program of study included courses taken in 2008, 2009, and 2010, which indicates that his Titulo 
de Licenciado is a three-rar credential. Although the Petitioner provided an academic equivalency 
evaluation froml _(S-) which states that the Petitioner's credential is the foreign equivalent of 
a U.S. bachelor's degree in physics, the record does not support this conclusion. The evaluation does 
not provide an analysis of the Petitioner's academic record, but simply lists his courses and includes a 
chart titled "Education System in Brazil"; this chart shows a "Bacharelado, Licenciado (Undergrad.)" 
as "4 - 6 yrs." 
In cases involving foreign degrees, USCIS may favorably consider a credentials evaluation performed 
by an independent credentials evaluator who has provided a credible, logical, and well-documented 
case for an equivalency determination that is based solely on the individual's foreign degree(s). As in 
this case, opinions rendered that are merely conclusory and do not provide a credible roadmap that 
clearly lays out the basis for the opinions are not persuasive. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual E.9, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-e-chapter-9. Without more, the evaluation from 
S- does little to support the Petitioner's assertion that his Titulo de Licenciado is the foreign equivalent 
of a U.S. bachelor's degree. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. He has not done so here. 
We also reviewed the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers 
(AACRAO) EDGE database to determine whether the Petitioner's Titulo de Licenciado is comparable 
to a U.S. degree. The AACRAO EDGE database is a reliable resource concerning the U.S. 
equivalencies of foreign education. For more information, visit https://www.aacrao.org/edge. The 
database provides the following concerning the Petitioner's three-year degree: 
The 2- to 3-year Titulo de Licenciado (Licencciatura) represents attainment of a level 
of education comparable to 2 to 3 years of university study in the United States. Credit 
may be awarded on a course-by-course basis. The 4-year Titulo de Licenciado 
(Licencciatura) represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a 
bachelor's degree in the United States. 
According to EDGE, the Petitioner's Titulo de Licenciado, considered alone, 1s not the foreign 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
Similarly, the record includes the Petitioner's Titulo de Especialista for a "Pos-Graduac;ao - Lato 
Sensu - MBA em Cinema" program; the documentation consists of a certificate and academic record 
for a program of study in cinema ending in July 201 7. A credential evaluation report from S- lists the 
Petitioner's combined credentials (Titulo de Licenciado and Titulo de Especialista) as the U.S. 
equivalent of a "Bachelor of Science degree in Physics and a Postgraduate certificate in Cinema 
Business Administration." Again, the report does not provide an analysis of the Petitioner's academic 
record; the report shows a chart titled "Education System in Brazil" showing various education levels, 
including "Especializac;ao (Graduate)" as "l yrs" and "Mestre (Graduate)" as "l - 2 yrs." Without 
4 
more, the evaluation lacks a logical, documented analysis sufficient to show that the Petitioner has 
earned the U.S. equivalent of either a bachelor's degree or an advanced degree based solely on his 
foreign education credentials. We conclude that these credential evaluations hold little probative value 
in this matter. See Matter of Chawathe, supra. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to the evaluation from S- in which the evaluator acknowledges that 
the Petitioner's Titulo de Especialista is not the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree in the 
following discussion ( quoted as written): 
While licentiate obtained by the applicant alone would not meet requirements for the 4 
years of a baccalaureate, with the additional undergraduate-level study in the MBA 
'lato sensu' program, we would consider this to be equivalent to a US bachelor's 
degree. The added year of this undergraduate coursework enables us to have both a 
completed benchmark (the 3-year licentiate) and 4 years of undergraduate coursework. 
While this coursework is not progressive in the specialty, and while the lato sensu 
program would not be considered equivalent to studies in a master's degree program, 
it does rise to both our benchmark and year-count limits for bachelor's degrees in the 
United States. 
The evaluation from S- also does not support the Petitioner's assertions because while he discusses 
the total years of schooling that the Petitioner gained through obtaining these credentials, his 
conclusions do not bear out the Petitioner's contention that either credential considered on its own 
equates to at least a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
The Petitioner points to an additional evaluation initially included in the record from~I-----~ 
I l(G-) which provides the following analysis (quoted as written): 
Considering that [the Petitioner] with a three-year degree in Licentiate in Physics 
followed by more than five years of foll-time work experience in the field of Film and 
Media Production is equivalent to a U.S. deree of Master of Fine Arts in Film and 
Media Production, it is my expert opinion that Iwith a Licentiate 
in Physics, a Post-Graduation Lato Sensu Specialization Course in MBA in Cinema, 
and 11 years of experience, has the equivalent of a U.S. degree of Master of Fine Arts 
in Film and Media Production awarded by regionally accredited universities in the 
United States. 
Under the provision of USCIS, the "3-for-1 Rule" states that three years of relevant 
work experience is equal to one year of education. Therefore, it can be determined that 
the beneficiary attained sufficient years of specialized training and work experience to 
equate to the college coursework in Film and Media Production. 
This evaluation does not provide explanations of how the Petitioner's coursework and work experience 
in Brazil equate to the receipt of a U.S. bachelor's degree or advanced degree. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) does not provide for a substitution of training or experience to be considered 
5 
as the equivalent of a bachelor's degree; both section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act and the EB-2 regulations 
contemplate only a single bachelor's degree, not a combination of education and experience claimed 
as the equivalent, in aggregate, of a bachelor's degree. We also note that the evaluation from G- uses 
an argument to equate the Petitioner's work experience that does not apply to immigrant petitions but 
appears instead to rely on an unrelated regulatory provision reserved for certain nonimmigrant 
petitions. Credential evaluations are reviewed for advisory purposes only; if questionable in any way, 
USCIS may give them less weight. Matter o_fCaron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r) 1988). While 
we have considered each of the evaluations provided by the Petitioner, they do not demonstrate that 
the Petitioner has earned the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree or an advanced degree. 
Lastly, we reviewed the AACRAO EDGE database to determine whether the Petitioner's foreign 
Titulo de Especialista is comparable to a U.S. master's degree. The database provides the following 
information concerning this education credential: 
CREDENTIAL DESCRIPTION 
[Specialist]. Awarded following programs of various lengths; most are at least 1 year 
long. 
CREDENTIAL ADVICE 
The Especializac;aol Titula de Especial is ta represents attainment of a level of education 
comparable to up to 1 year of graduate study in the United States. 
CREDENTIAL AUTHOR NOTES 
Professional development and specialization programs are considered Jato sensu wide 
sense graduate level programs and following independent legislation. Such programs 
lead toward professional certificates, not graduate degrees. They require 1 to 2 or 3 
years of study. 
The information in the EDGE database indicates that the Petitioner's Titulo de Especialista equates to 
a professional certificate, as opposed to a graduate degree. Considering this information and the 
evidence of record, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has attained the foreign equivalent of 
a U.S. bachelor's degree or advanced degree. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that he 
qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree pursuant to section 203(b )(2)(A) 
of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Furthermore, as he does not hold at least a U.S. bachelor's 
degree or its foreign equivalent, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has at least five years of 
progressive post-baccalaureate experience consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Therefore, the 
Petitioner does not qualify for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. 
B. Eligibility as an Individual of Exceptional Ability 
As noted above, to demonstrate eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, a petitioner must 
initially submit documentation that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). The Director determined that the Petitioner met the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) but did not meet the remaining criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C)­
(F). 
6 
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 Director determined that the Petitioner's membership with the Union of Workers in Broadcasting 
and Television Companies in the State of Sao Paulo (the union) did not demonstrate that he has a 
license to practice a profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation. On appeal, 
the Petitioner quotes articles from the statute of the Syndicate of Workers in Radio Broadcasting and 
Television Companies in the State of Sao Paulo (the syndicate) which describe its formation and that 
it was "constituted for the purpose of defense and legal representation of the professional category of 
workers in radio broadcasting companies, active or retired in the State of Sao Paulo." The Petitioner 
states that his membership "constitutes certification for the occupation of workers in Radio 
Broadcasting and Television companies in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil, affiliated to the interstate 
Federation of Workers in Broadcasting and Television Companies - FITERT." 
The Petitioner's membership card depicts registration, enrollment, identification, and taxpayer 
numbers; issuance, validity, and affiliation dates; a website and phone number; and the Petitioner's 
occupation as a radialista, or radio broadcaster. Neither the card nor the quoted articles from the 
syndicate indicate that membership constitutes either a license to practice a profession or a certification 
for an occupation. We also note that the occupation(s) for which the Petitioner claims to have 
exceptional ability is not that of radio broadcaster, but that of an audio-video editor, filmmaker, and 
producer; as such, his membership is not indicative of the Petitioner's claim that he holds a license to 
practice or certification within the occupations in which he seeks employment through this petition. 
We agree with the Director that the record does not satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other renumeration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion because the translations for his 
tax returns did not include a certification from the translator indicating that the translations are accurate 
and complete and that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. On 
appeal, the Petitioner states that the record does include a certification from the translator and that, 
because the Director did not challenge his salary, he has met this criterion. Upon review, we observe 
that the record does include a certification from the translator for the Petitioner's tax documents. 
These documents list the fiscal year as 2019 and the tax reference year as 2018, and they show earnings 
totaling R$ 137,430.05. The record also includes printouts for career openings at the Library of 
Congress for the positions of Quality Assurance Specialist and Audio Preservation Specialist; these 
vacancy announcements are from 2022 and show salaries ranging from $74,950 to $116,788 per year. 
It is not clear whether these announcements were submitted as evidence to show that the Petitioner's 
earnings in Brazil demonstrate his exceptional ability. The record does not include salary information 
for careers similar to the Petitioner's career during the years identified on his tax documents, nor has 
the Petitioner offered other documentation showing how his earnings compare to the earnings of others 
in his field to demonstrate his claimed exceptional ability. The record does not satisfy this criterion. 
7 
Evidence ofmembership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion because he did not provide 
documentation showing the requirements for membership in the union. On appeal, the Petitioner 
reiterates his previous contention that his membership should be considered a license to practice an 
occupation under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) as well as for membership under this 
criterion. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "profession" as any occupation for which 
a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry 
into the occupation. Accordingly, a professional association is one which requires its members to be 
members of a profession as defined in the regulation. 
The evidence of the Petitioner's union membership does not show that his membership requires the 
attainment of, at minimum, a baccalaureate degree related to radio broadcasting, the occupation 
designated on his membership card. The record does not include other information specifically about 
the union concerning its membership requirements to establish that it qualifies as a professional 
association for EB-2 eligibility purposes. We also incorporate our previous discussion under the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) that the Petitioner has not adequately established how his 
union membership as a radio broadcaster relates to his prospective occupation(s) as an audio-video 
editor, filmmaker, and producer. We agree with the Director that the record does not satisfy this 
criterion. 
Evidence ofrecognition 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 Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion. The Director acknowledged 
that, while the "evidence reflects that the petitioner performed admirably for his employer, and for the 
individuals [to whom] he and his team provided their services," the evidence did not demonstrate that 
the Petitioner has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or 
field by any entities listed within the criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to several previously submitted letters and asserts they serve as evidence 
that he meets the criterion, including one from a former colleague, Mr. P-, and his Florida business 
partner, Mr. H-. We observe that these letters from colleagues and clients of the Petitioner speak to 
his editing skills, creativity, and professionalism , among other talents he has used to successfully 
complete projects. The letters show that the Petitioner has production experience in the education 
sector and in the entertainment, real estate, restaurant, automotive, and airline industries. The letters 
do not, however, adequately address how the Petitioner has garnered recognition for achievements and 
significant contributions to his industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or 
business organizations. For instance, Mr. P- explains in his letter: 
I first met [the Petitioner] in 2019 when he joined the team as an editor in the program 
called I I ... His work demanded creative capacity, and wisdom in the 
development of different videos and languages (institutional, documentary, journalism , 
[soap] opera, announcements, and internet), for this it is fundamental to have the ability 
to assemble the shooting materials, and technical knowledge in different TV programs, 
8 
to know how to work with the image and its colors, the audio and soundtrack. [The 
Petitioner] fulfilled all the requirements. 
I believe in [the Petitioner's] capacity to edit new episodes and to connect new subjects. 
[The Petitioner] is organized, and he knows how to explore all possibilities of the work. 
As another example, Mr. H- explains in his letter: 
In 2022, [ the Petitioner] joined my team to promote my companies through commercial 
videos on the internet [ and] helped to overcome our sales goal for that date, which was 
$70,000. 
[The Petitioner] has shown professionalism, exceptional knowledge of equipment and 
audiovisual language, disposition, innovative ideas, and administrative capacity. He 
has the vision and the general knowledge of how a communicative enterprise works 
from the best and necessary equipment, the planning, screenwriting, production, video 
recording, editing, soundtrack to color adjustment, whether these videos are 
commercial, institutional, documentaries, cultural, entertainment, or journalistic. 
While these authors and other letter-writers laude the Petitioner's skills, without more detailed 
explanations about the Petitioner's specific contributions to the industry or field that are supported by 
documentary evidence, the letters in the record do not sufficiently support the Petitioner's assertion 
that he has met this criterion. Chawathe, supra. Here, the Petitioner has not met his burden to establish 
that he has garnered recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field 
as contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
The Petitioner has not established that he meets three of the six evidentiary criteria under 
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii), and so he has not met the initial requirement to demonstrate his eligibility as 
an individual of exceptional ability. Thus, we need not conduct a final merits determination of whether 
he is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
field. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or, alternatively, as an individual with exceptional ability. 
Therefore, he is ineligible for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal 
are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments 
concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
(1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
9 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements for EB-2 classification. His petition 
will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10