dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Forest Nurseries And Environmental Conservation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 09, 2024 In Re: 30681083 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of "forest nurseries and environmental conservation," seeks 
employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigration classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. 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 classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition and dismissed the Petitioner's two 
subsequent motions, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. 1 The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant 
to 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 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. 
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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884,889 (AAO 2016), provides 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. 
1 The Director initially denied the petition based, in part, on a determination that the Petitioner did not establish her 
eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. The Director concluded that she overcame this 
ground for denial with her first motion. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,2 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. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding the 
equivalent of an advanced degree as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The issue before us is whether 
the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had established the substantial merit of the proposed 
endeavor but had not met the other requirements described in Dhanasar. For the reasons provided 
below, we agree with the Director's conclusions. While we will not address each piece of evidence 
individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
A. The Petitioner and The Proposed Endeavor 
The record indicates that the Petitioner completed her education in Brazil, where she earned a 
bachelor's degree in forest engineering in 2010 and a post-graduate specialization in safety 
engineering in 2013. Between 2010 and January 201 7, she worked as a forest engineer for two 
Brazilian landscaping companies and as a self-employed independent contractor in her field. The 
Petitioner was admitted to the United States as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor in Febrnary 2018 and was 
later granted a change of status to F-1 nonimmigrant student in March 2019. She was still in the 
United States in F-1 status when she filed the petition in March 2022. 
The Petitioner submitted a "definitive statement" and a business plan in support of the petition. Her 
proposed endeavor is a "land rehab engineering company" that will focus on "forest and landscape 
repair after high environmental impact activities and natural disasters." The business plan states the 
company will use "geo-biological research and engineering" and "innovative methods" to "aid in the 
restoration of areas which have been significantly damaged by activities such as mining and crnde oil 
extraction." According to the sales strategy described in the business plan, the company will rely on 
the Petitioner's existing network in "the petroleum engineering industry" to target well-known 
companies in the mining and oil and gas sectors. The company's five-year revenue projections are 
based on sales of four products and services: seedling plants, organic materials, land rehabilitation 
services, and forest recovery services. 
The business plan indicates that the Petitioner's company is incorporated in California, will operate 
warehouses, business development offices, and tree nurseries in three California counties within five 
2 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 discretionmy in nature). 
2 
years, and will expand its operations to Texas and Florida within 10 to 15 years. The Petitioner is 
identified as the company's chief executive officer and founder, with a 30 percent ownership interest. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner has submitted media, government, and industry articles and reports about the ecological 
importance of forests, the positive environmental, economic, and social impacts of forest and 
landscape restoration activities, and U.S. government initiatives aimed at strengthening American 
forests and combating climate change. She also provided articles that address the contributions of 
entrepreneurs to the growth and stability of the U.S. economy. Based on this evidence, we agree with 
the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to establish and manage a 
company focused on land and forest restoration and rehabilitation has substantial merit. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that this same evidence demonstrates the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor. She contends that the Director reached contradictory findings by acknowledging 
that her company will provide "important" services in land and forest restoration while simultaneously 
concluding that she did not meet the national importance requirement under Dhanasar's first prong. 
However, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 
industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. A 
petitioner may present a proposed endeavor that focuses on an area with significant merit, but still fall 
short of demonstrating that their specific endeavor has a potential prospective impact in that area that 
is commensurate with national importance. Therefore, the Petitioner's claim that the Director's 
decision contains contradictory findings on the issue of national importance is unpersuasive. 
In Dhanasar, we emphasized that "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, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." 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. As noted by the Director, USCIS will also consider whether a petitioner 
demonstrated that a proposed endeavor will broadly enhance societal welfare and whether it impacts 
a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of 
national initiatives. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation or 
explanation concerning how her proposed endeavor has national importance. In her initial statement 
describing the endeavor, the Petitioner stated that her company will be headquartered in California 
3 
and "is set to serve HUBZone areas, which are part of a United States Business Administration 
program for small companies that operate and employ people in historically underntilized business 
zones." The Petitioner did not identify the specific HUBZone area(s) in which her company would be 
located, nor did she cite any independent evidence to establish the relevance of the claimed HUBZone 
designation. Beyond this initial statement, the record contains no additional reference to the 
Petitioner's intent to operate within HUBZone areas. 
The accompanying business plan indicates the company's owners "have mapped specific locations 
with underserved populations starting in I I California," citing this city's high score on the 
Distressed Communities Index (DCI) based on its poverty rate, unemployment rates, and other factors, 
as evidence that it is an economically depressed area. 3 While the record indicates the Petitioner's 
intent to locate her company's facilities in HUBZones or economically depressed or distressed areas, 
it does not contain evidence establishing the company's actual physical location in one of these areas, 
nor does it provide information as to whether its planned future locations in County and 
I County would be situated in economically depressed areas. 
The business plan projects that the Petitioner's company will have 149 full- and part-time employees 
and annual revenue of approximately $9 .4 million by its fifth year of operation, with the number of 
employees, payroll, and revenues nearly doubling from year-to-year. However, the record does not 
sufficiently detail the basis for the company's staffing and financial projections or adequately explain 
how they will be realized. For example, the company's staffing numbers, anticipated payroll costs, 
and income projections are predicated on the company's expansion to two additional locations within 
five years, each with a business development office, a warehouse, and a tree nursery. But the business 
plan indicates that the company's annual operating and capital expenditures will be nearly static over 
this same period, with no anticipated increases in rents, utilities, insurance, maintenance, professional 
services, marketing and sales, and equipment purchases between year one and year five. 4 It is unclear 
how the company could achieve the projected expansion in staffing, revenue and geographic scope 
without accrning expenses that would reasonably be associated with such expansion. These anomalies 
raise questions regarding the probative value of the stated staffing and financial projections. 
Notwithstanding the lack of support for some of the projections contained in the business plan, we do 
not question that the Petitioner's company would hire U.S. workers. However, in addressing national 
importance, Dhanasar points to an endeavor that has "the significant potential to employ U.S. workers 
or has other substantial economic effects." 26 I&N Dec. at 890. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
she met her burden to demonstrate that her endeavor will immediately create jobs and that such 
"significant potential" for job creation is sufficient, under Dhanasar, to support a determination that 
her endeavor has national importance. Accordingly, she objects to the Director's statement that 
"USCIS is not persuaded that projected hiring of 149 individuals constitutes significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic benefits for the nation." The 
3 The business plan indicates a Distressed Communities Index (DCI) of93.7 (out of 100) for the zip code of 
The submitted map shows adjacent zip codes inl Ithat are in the "at risk," "comfortable," and "prosperous" 
range. Therefore, simply indicating a potential location "in I I does not demonstrate that the company is or 
would be situated in an "economically depressed" area. 
4 A chart describing the company's five-year operational expenditures indicates that the company will pay $102.696 in 
year one and $117,788 in year five. 
4 
Petitioner contends that the Director applied a "newfound interpretation of 'potential to employ U.S. 
workers'" and erroneously found it "essential to show more than 149 hires." 
As noted, Dhanasar' s first prong focuses on whether a petitioner shows "substantial prospective 
benefits" commensurate with national importance. 26 I&N Dec. at 890. When considering whether 
a given endeavor has "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial economic 
effects," in this context, the job creation potential of the endeavor should demonstrate "substantial 
economic effects." Therefore, the Petitioner's burden goes beyond simply showing that her endeavor 
will employ U.S. workers. Here, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not show how the 
direct hiring of 149 workers in three undefined locations over a five-year period would have such 
substantial effects. As noted, the Petitioner did not adequately support her assertion that some or all 
these workers would be employed in economically depressed areas or provide an adequate basis for 
the staffing projections in her business plan. 
The business plan also includes projections of indirect job creation based on a national job multiplier 
published by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) for the "professional, technical and scientific 
services" industry, which indicates that the creation of I00 direct jobs in this sector results in 418.3 
total indirect jobs. The business plan notes that this industry "has a ripple effect of 418.3% on supplier 
and induced jobs per each job positions created" such that the Petitioner's company "will have a 
substantial ripple effect through the economy." However, the cited EPI figures are general statistics 
that apply to the broad industry sectors of "professional, scientific and technical services," rather than 
specifically to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to establish a land rehabilitation business. 
As such, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed endeavor would offer a 
region or its population a substantial direct economic benefit through employment levels, business 
activity, or related tax revenue, or the claimed "ripple effects" through indirect job creation. 
In her definitive statement, the Petitioner claims that her "entrepreneurial-minded endeavors are of 
particular importance, given that I am due to play a key role in the United States' economic recovery, 
ameliorating the financial strains caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, namely by spurring 
opportunities, incentivizing national economic production, and hiring U.S. workers." She further 
states that, through her company, she will "increase national and international integration and 
productivity and enhance revenues for the U.S. economy at large." However, the Petitioner does not 
offer an evidentiary basis to demonstrate that the work she intends to perform through her company 
would have the claimed far-reaching economic results. While any increased business activity has the 
potential to positively impact the economy on some level, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the 
direct or indirect economic benefits resulting from her company's activities would rise to the level of 
having substantial economic effects. 
Nevertheless, economic impact is not the only factor we evaluate in weighing the national importance 
of a proposed endeavor. We have also considered whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would 
have broader implications in her field or industry. In the denial, the Director acknowledged that the 
submitted business plan identifies her company's planned use of "innovative methods" for land 
reclamation and forestry services that include the use of biological inoculants, alley cropping, 
precision forestry, and seed drones. The Director also noted the Petitioner's contention that these 
methods, while not new or unknown in the industry, are "still being developed and have not quite been 
5 
widely adopted by many." The Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide evidence to 
support this claim or demonstrate that her endeavor offers "original contributions that have a broader 
impact to the field of forest nurseries and environmental conservation." 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director erroneously imposed an "original innovation" 
requirement that is not supported by the statute, regulations, or the three-prong framework established 
in Dhanasar. We agree that a petitioner need not specifically show "original innovations" in order to 
demonstrate that their proposed endeavor will have broader implications in a given field or industry. 
However, Dhanasar states that an endeavor that offers, for example, "improved manufacturing 
practices and medical advances" may have such implications. See 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As noted by 
the Director, while the business plan includes a description of how biological inoculants, seed drones, 
precision forestry and alley cropping are used in the industry, she did not provide evidence in support 
of her claim that these techniques are in limited use in the United States, nor did she explain how her 
company's use of these techniques would impact her field. Further, while the Petitioner indicates that 
her own company will use these practices, the business plan does not indicate that it plans to 
disseminate these techniques to others in the industry, such that they would have broader implications 
beyond the Petitioner's company and its clients. 
We also acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that her proposed endeavor is aligned with 
strengthening America's forests and implementing climate change solutions, matters that are the 
subject of U.S. government initiatives. Nevertheless, we must still evaluate the potential prospective 
impact of the endeavor based on the factors set forth in Dhanasar to ensure that the potential 
prospective impact of her work is commensurate with the first prong's national importance 
requirement. Pursuing employment in an area that is adjacent to the subject of national initiatives is 
not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of a specific endeavor. Here, the 
business plan indicates that the Petitioner's company will be targeting mining and oil and gas industry 
companies, and explains that these industries are regulated by federal and state bodies to rehabilitate 
lands that are adversely affected by their activities. While the Petitioner's company will assist its 
clients in meeting existing legal mandates related to ecological restoration, the record does not support 
a determination that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will have a substantial prospective 
impact on national initiatives related to forestry, the environment and climate change. 
To further illustrate the potential impact of her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner points to her past 
employment experience and qualifications in the field of forest engineering. We reviewed her 
statements and her letters of recommendation from employers, former professors, and colleagues. 
While the authors of these letters express their high opinion of the Petitioner and her prior work in the 
field, they do not discuss her specific proposed endeavor in the United States or explain why it has 
national importance. As such, the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first 
prong of Dhanasar. Furthermore, we note that the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and 
experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 26 I&N Dec at 890. The issue under the first prong is 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of her proposed work. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter from an associate 
professor of marketing, who addresses the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver under 
Dhanasar' s three-prong analytical framework. The author focuses on the Petitioner's qualifications as 
6 
a forest engineer, the economic costs and human health risks associated with environmental damage and 
climate change, the Biden Administration's objectives for the significant reduction of greenhouse gas 
pollution by 2030, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and its Forest Nursery 
System. He states that, given these costs, risks, and ongoing efforts to combat them, "the United States 
would greatly benefit from the expertise and skills of an experienced entrepreneur in the field of forest 
nurseries and environmental conservation such as [the Petitioner]." The focus here, however, is not on 
the Petitioner's qualifications or on the merits of the field or industry, but on the specific proposed 
endeavor. Here, the author of the expert opinion letter does not address the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor in support of his conclusion that the endeavor will, for example, "improve business operations 
and promote environmental protection and climate action which will result in a safer environment and a 
more productive economy." The author similarly reaches, without sufficient explanation, a conclusion 
that the endeavor will have environmental impacts that "can result in dramatic health improvements and 
reduce health costs," and thus will "broadly enhance societal welfare." 
We observe that users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, 
professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of 
Caron lnt'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r. 1988). However, users is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of 
D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) ( discussing the varying weight that may be given expert 
testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). The economic, 
environmental, and societal benefits of ecological restoration and other efforts to combat climate 
change, which are addressed in the expert opinion letter, are well-established in the record and are not 
at issue. The question is whether the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would have impacts in 
these areas that are commensurate with national importance. Here, the expert opinion letter did not 
sufficiently address this issue. 
For the above reasons, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not established 
that her proposed endeavor has national importance as described in Dhansar. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second Dhanasar prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To 
determine whether an individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider 
factors including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related 
or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of evidence documenting her academic 
credentials in forest engineering, her continuing education, here relevant prior work experience, and 
her involvement in conferences in her field, noting that such evidence demonstrates that she is well 
qualified to provide forest and land reclamation services. However, in concluding that the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, the Director 
emphasized that the Petitioner did not provide evidence to establish the existence of external support 
or interest in her endeavor, either financially or through customer/client interest. The Director also 
7 
observed that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she has progressed towards achieving the 
proposed endeavor, noting that there was no indication in the record that the Petitioner had 
incorporated or registered her company and secured physical premises and equipment. Finally, the 
Director noted that the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner, who has no prior 
entrepreneurial experience, "has a track record of establishing and operating a start-up land 
reclamation business of the type proposed." 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the overall body of evidence submitted "thoroughly satisfies 
every requirement outlined in the non-exhaustive list prescribed by USCIS, including demonstrable 
success in forest engineering, a well-defined plan for future endeavors, tangible progress towards 
proposed goals, and evidence of interest from potential clients." 
She emphasizes her bachelor's degree in forest engineering, her progressive work experience in this 
field, her continuing education and professional certifications, and her original research contributions as 
evidenced by two conference presentations and her recent publication of a journal article. In addition, 
the Petitioner highlights her active registration with several Brazilian governing bodies in her field, 
including the Federal Boards of Engineering and Agronomy in the States of Amazonas and Sao Paolo. 
Letters from the Petitioner's prior employers, university professors, and the expert opinion letter 
addressed above also attest to her skills and qualifications in the forest engineering field. However, the 
Director did not question the Petitioner's qualifications, experience, or prior success as a forest engineer 
in the decision denying the petition. Rather, they found that the record was lacking evidence of other 
indicators that she is well positioned to advance her proposed entrepreneurial endeavor. 
The Petitioner objects to the Director's determination that she did not establish a track record of 
establishing and operating a start-up land reclamation business," noting the record contains "extensive 
information" about her diverse skills and professional achievements. She maintains that "all her skills 
should be considered having equal weight." However, the Petitioner has not shown that her skills 
include acting as the founder and CEO of an entrepreneurial enterprise. The Petitioner indicated in 
her definitive statement that she will be coordinating the proposed endeavor's "operational, 
commercial and financial strategies," setting its objectives, supervising business activities, ensuring 
compliance with regulations and laws, monitoring the company's revenue and profits, and reviewing 
its fiscal reports to devise solutions and improvements. While she indicates that she "contributed to 
the foundation" of a Brazilian company from 2016 to 2017, by consulting with management in her 
role as a forest engineer, the record does not establish that she performed comparable duties or has 
any evident experience establishing or running a land rehabilitation business. 
In response to the Director's determination that she did not demonstrate that potential customers and 
investors have expressed interest in the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner points to the previously 
submitted industry reports and articles. She contends that the record contains "extensive evidence of 
the continuously increasing interest by entities both public and private" in the services she intends to 
provide through her company. She cites additional industry articles in support of her assertion that 
"companies from across industries are investing in forests," and asserts "it is clear that there is a high 
demand" for the services her company will offer. 
However, Dhanasar's second prong does not merely require evidence that there is a general industry 
demand for the products or services a given petitioner intends to offer in the United States. Rather, it 
8 
indicates that a petitioner may submit evidence of "the interest of potential customers, users, investors, 
or other relevant entities or individuals" in their specific endeavor. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 890. Here, the business plan states that the Petitioner's company will use her existing network in 
"the petroleum engineering field" to target multinational companies such as Chevron, Shell, 
ExxonMobil, Vale, BHP and several Chinese mining companies, and that these types of companies 
will serve as "anchor clients." The record does not contain supporting evidence elaborating on the 
Petitioner's established network among these types of firms or show that these or other companies 
have expressed interest on using the services of the Petitioner's start-up company for their land 
rehabilitation projects in the United States. 
Finally, beyond asserting that she has a "well-defined plan" and has made "tangible progress" towards 
her goals, the Petitioner does not contest or otherwise address the Director's conclusion that the record 
does not contain evidence of her progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor. Despite 
indicating in the business plan that the Petitioner's company was incorporated in California and 
located inl Ithe Petitioner did not provide evidence demonstrating the existence or physical 
location of the company or show that it has commenced any business activities. The business plan 
indicates that the company would require an initial investment of $100,000, with the Petitioner holding 
a 30% ownership share, two named partners owning 20% each, and a 30% interest reserved for "other 
investors." The Petitioner did not identify any other investors or show that the company had secured 
the necessary investments from the Petitioner, her named partners, or others. Further, as noted above, 
the record lacks the requested evidence of "interest from potential customers, investors or other 
relevant individuals." The record does not establish that she took any concrete steps toward 
implementing the business plan before filing the petition or while it was pending. 
Therefore, for these reasons, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown she is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
Considering the above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met her burden of proof to show that she 
meets the first or second prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. Detailed discussion 
of the third and final prong cannot change the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve the 
Petitioner's appellate arguments addressing the third prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-
26 ( 1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required to make findings and 
decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter ofL-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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor and has not 
demonstrated that she is well-positioned to advance it. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that she merits, as a matter of discretion, a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9