dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23117051 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 07, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) director, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as either 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 of a labor certification. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Accordingly, the Director determined 
that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 l&N Dec. 799, 
806 (AAO 2012). 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, 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 10l{a)(32) of the Act, 8 USC § 1101(a)(32), 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)(i i). 
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). In announcing this new framework, we vacated 
our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 
215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest 
waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th 
Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in 
nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted 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. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three 
prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Underlying EB-2 Classification 
In our de nova review of the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying classification, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established he is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or that he is 
an individual of exceptional ability. Therefore, we withdraw the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner 
qualifies for the underlying classification as an advanced degree professional. While we may not discuss 
each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
1. 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). 
The Petitioner provided a foreign academic record indicating that he earned a Tftulo de Tecn61ogo 
(Title of Technologist) in computer technology from an educational institution in Brazil. To support 
a finding that he qualifies as an advanced de ree rofessional, the Petitioner provided an academic 
and experience evaluation from a professor at the I lot the City 
University ofl I Although,___ __ stated that the courses completed and the number of 
credit hours earned indicate the U.S. equivalency of the Petitioner's education, he offered little 
explanation of the Petitioner's credit hours, nor did he analyze how they are the equivalent of a U.S. 
education. As such, I generalized conclusions are insufficient to establish the U.S. 
equivalency of the Petitioner's education. We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's 
foreign education as an advisory opinion. Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we 
3 
may discount or give less weight to that evaluation. Id. Here, we question the accuracy of D I I conclusions, as he did not provide sufficient analysis to support them. Accordingly, we 
conclude that this evaluation is of little probative value in this matter. 
Based on the information contained in the record, the Petitioner has not met his burden to establish the 
U.S. equivalency of his foreign education in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). The 
Petitioner should be prepared to address this evidentiary shortcoming in any of his future filings. 
Nevertheless, we reviewed the AACRAO EDGE database to determine whether the Petitioner's 
foreign education is comparable to any U.S. degree. The AACRAO EDGE database is a reliable 
resource concerning the U.S. equivalencies of foreign education. See generally American Association 
of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, Electronic Database for Global Education, 
https://www.aacrao.org/edge (last visited Nov. 07, 2022). The database reflects that the level of 
education of Title of Technologist is comparable to two to three years of university study. Id. As a 
U.S. bachelor's degree is typically four years of university study, we conclude that the Petitioner's 
Title of Technologist in computer technology is not the foreign equivalent of U.S. bachelor's degree. 
Because the Petitioner has not established that he has at least the foreign equivalent of a U.S. 
bachelor's degree, we need not analyze whether he has established that he possesses at least five years 
of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established that he qualifies as an advanced degree professional. 
2. Evidentiary Criteria for Exceptional Abi I ity 
The Petitioner has not established that he satisfies at least three of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii). Accordingly, we conclude that he has not established that he qualifies as an individual of 
exceptional ability. 
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) 
As explained, the evidence establishes that the Petitioner holds a Title of Technologist in computer 
technology. While this education is not the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, we conclude 
that the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that he has received an official academic 
record showing that he has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, 
school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of claimed exceptional ability. Therefore, he 
satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien 
has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
The Petitioner provided three employment letters. To evidence his self-employment in a business that he 
owns, he provided a letter from an accountant, stating that the Petitioner has been a partner at 
I lfrom September 2008 to the present. The letter does not describe any 
of the Petitioner's duties as a partner nor does the letter indicate whether the Petitioner worked full-ti me 
or part-time. In addition to these deficiencies, we question the author's authority and knowledge to 
4 
credibly comment on the Petitioner's employment dates. The author of the letter appears to be an 
accountant from an outsourced company that hired to provide 
administrative services. Moreover, the information provided in this letter conflicts with other information 
in the record. The Petitioner's form ETA 750 Part B (ETA) states that the Petitioner has been working 
forty hours per week as an IT Director atl I from September 2008 to the present. It is unclear if 
I I is the same company as I I Further, it is unclear if "IT 
Director" is the same position as "partner," the title the accountant referenced, or '"Owner/Partner -
Director of Operations Technology (CIO)," as referenced in the Petitioner's resume. These 
inconsistencies cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Petitioner's employment. 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. 
Id. 
As noted, the Petitioner's resume states that from September 2008 to the present, he has been working as 
an Owner/Partner - Director of O erations Technolo CIO) atl I 
At the same time, the Petitioner stated in 
his resume that he has also been working as Owner/Partner - Director of Operations Technology (CIO) 
for I from August 2013 to the present. Taking the information 
in the ETA and the resume together, it appears that the Petitioner has simultaneously worked at least two 
jobs since 2013. While not impossible to simultaneously work two full-time jobs, we nevertheless 
question whether each of these jobs requires full-time work. Other evidence in the record suggests that 
the Petitioner operates his businesses by engaging individual clients on individual projects. While it is 
possible that the Petitioner may have accrued enough clients and projects such that the Petitioner's work 
hours comprise full-time experience, the record lacks evidence to support this conclusion. For instance, 
the record does not contain evidence of any client service contracts or payments from clients to the 
Petitioner. Based on the record as currently constructed, we cannot conclude that the letter of self­
employment from the Petitioner's outsourced accountant is sufficient to establish ten years of full-time 
work experience in the profession. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter stating that he worked at as the Director Unit Service from 
June 2009 to August 2010. In addition, we reviewed the letter frornC:Jwhich states that the Petitioner 
worked from November 1998 to October 2007 as a Business Analyst. However, neither letter states 
whether the Petitioner performed work for these companies on a full-time basis. Additionally, the letters 
do not desc1ibe the Petitioner's duties such that we can determine whether the Petitioner gained 
experience in the IT field. Notably, the letter appears on letterhead that may be from an unrelated 
entity calledl I The Petitioner has not explained how relates to such that it may 
credibly comment on the Petitioner's employment dates with Moreover, the titles provided for the 
Petitioner in both letters conflict with the titles the Petitioner provided in his resume. The Petitioner's 
resume states that the Petitioner served in the position of Chief Technology Officer for and 
Technology Innovation Project Manager for As these resume titles conflict with the Director Unit 
Service and Business Analyst titles provided in the letters, respectively, we cannot conclude that the 
Petitioner has sufficiently or consistently evidenced his work history. Therefore, we conclude that the 
evidence is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner has ten years of full-time work experience in the IT 
field. 
5 
Because the evidence of the Petitioner's employment is inconsistent, lacks sufficient detail, and is not 
adequately corroborated by other evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets this 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 provide evidence for our consideration under this criterion. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility under 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 provided a website printout of salary data for the position of "IT Director" in Brazil. 
Although the printout states that the data provided is from October 2018 to October 2019, it is unclear if 
the salaries listed correspond to an hourly, monthly, annual, or some other salary timeframe. Further, the 
Petitioner did not indicate which of the salary figures pertain to the professional level for which he 
believes he qualifies. For instance, the Petitioner offered no indication as to whether he is a "trainee," 
"junior," "full," "senior," or "master." In addition, the Petitioner did not indicate the size of the company, 
such as "little," "average," or "great," for which he worked during the relevant time frame, nor does the 
record contain sufficient evidence to corroborate the size of his employer during this time frame. 
Therefore, we cannot determine which figures in the salary chart correspond to the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner provided Brazilian tax return documents from the years 2015 to 2018; however, the chart 
provided does not reflect salary data from this time period. Therefore, the salary data in the chart is 
inapplicable to the Petitioner, as it does not correspond to the relevant years for which he provided 
evidence of his income. Even if it were established that the Petitioner received a salary that exceeded 
certain figures on the chart, it would still only provide a very limited picture of the Petitioner's salary in 
comparison to others in the profession. In other words, even if the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence 
to establish that his salary was in fact higher than other IT Directors, it would simply establish that he 
earned a higher-than-average salary. The evidence does not suggest that the salary he earned was due to 
his ability. 
The record does not support a finding that the Petitioner commands a salary that demonstrates exceptional 
ability. For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
The Petitioner did not provide evidence for our consideration under this criterion. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility under this criterion. 
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) 
For our consideration under this criterion, the Petitioner provided letters of recommendation, as well as 
articles and reports concerning the importance of the IT field, the demand for IT professionals, how 
business intel I igence can serve companies, the competitiveness of the IT field, and the shortage of workers 
in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. 
The Petitioner's professional acquaintances, colleagues, and former clients authored the letters of 
recommendation. The authors describe the Petitioner and the quality of services he provides, along with 
details concerning the projects and results the Petitioner achieved for companies and clients. Although 
they praise the Petitioner's professional skills and experience, as well as the success of the projects upon 
which the Petitioner worked, the authors do not suggest that the Petitioner received recognition for 
achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field. Rather, as explained, the authors 
described the results the Petitioner achieved on individual projects for individual companies. 
The letters do not support a finding that the Petitioner has impacted the IT industry or field, nor that he 
has received recognition for doing so. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted 
by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 
1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other 
information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of 
expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of 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"). While we acknowledge that the authors hold the Petitioner in high regard and praise the work he 
performed, we nevertheless conclude that they did not provide any specific details explaining how the 
Petitioner's work is representative of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field as a whole. 
We reviewed the reference materials concerning the shortage of professionals in the IT and STEM fields 
and the competitiveness of the industry, along with other background materials that offer an overview of 
the IT market and IT solutions. These materials do not mention the Petitioner specifically, or how he has 
impacted the field or industry. Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish that he 
has received recognition for achievements and significant contributions in that field. Therefore, we 
conclude that this evidence does not establish that the Petitioner received recognition for achievements 
and significant contributions in the field. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under this 
criterion. 
Summary of Exceptional Ability Determination 
The record does not support a finding that the Petitioner met at least three of the six regulatory criteria for 
exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Rather, we conclude that the evidence supports a finding 
of eligibility under only one criterion. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established his eligibility as an 
7 
individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. As the Petitioner has satisfied 
only one of the criteria, a final merits determination is not required. Nevertheless, we conclude that 
the record does not establish that the Petitioner's experience is beyond that which is ordinarily 
encountered in the profession. 
3. EB-2 Classification Conclusion 
As previously outlined, the Petitioner must show that he either possesses exceptional ability or is an 
advanced degree professional before we reach the question of the national interest waiver. We conclude 
that the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner meets the regulatory criteria for classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability or that he is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. It 
is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 l&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). As the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification, the issue of the 
national interest waiver is moot. The waiver is available only to foreign workers who otherwise qualify 
for classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
B. National Importance 
The Director denied the petition on the basis that the Petitioner had not established the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor under the first Dhanasar prong. Therefore, although the issue of the national 
interest waiver is moot, as explained above, we nevertheless provide additional analysis under the 
Dhanasar framework only insofar as to address the Petitioner's claims on appeal. 
The Director concluded the evidence did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national 
importance. The Director's decision then discussed the deficiencies in the submitted evidence and 
provided a well-reasoned explanation as to why the evidence was insufficient to establish eligibility for a 
national interest waiver under the first Dhanasar prong. Therefore, upon consideration of the entire 
record, including the arguments made on appeal, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the 
comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 26 l&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of 
Burbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f 
a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been 
adequately confronted and correctly resolved by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is 
free simply to adopt those findings" provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to 
the case). 
In his professional plan and statement, the Petitioner set forth his plan to directly help companies in 
large scale projects with complex IT systems. In his updated professional plan and statement, which 
he submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), he explained that his proposed 
endeavor involves running his own IT business in the United States. He will deliver services through 
consultancy, technical assistance, advising on infrastructure and tools, as well as providing solution 
architecture and project management. His U.S. company will offer services in four main categories: 
(1) IT consulting; (2) cloud computing implementation; (3) cloud computing support, monitoring, and 
management; and (3) virtual office platforms. The Director considered the Petitioner's professional 
plan and statement, but nonetheless determined that the evidence was insufficient to establish the 
8 
national importance of the proposed endeavor. We agree. The professional plan and statement 
describes the proposed endeavor but does not sufficiently describe the national importance of it. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's business plan in which he described his vision, mission, and the services 
he will provide. In the first five years of operation, the Petitioner anticipates that he will create 56 
direct jobs and generate over 200 jobs in general. He provided five-year growth projections in income, 
salary payment, and tax revenue. He also explained that his services will make his clients more 
efficient and productive such that their businesses will positively contribute to the economy as well. 
However, the Petitioner has not provided a foundation or corroborating details to support the growth 
projections he provided in his business plan. As such, these figures appear to be little more than 
conjecture. 
Although the Petitioner highlighted that his endeavor would positively impact the economy, tax 
revenue, and job creation, he has not offered sufficient evidence to corroborate these claims. We 
acknowledge the Petitioner's argument that through his services, the companies that hire him for his 
services can be more productive in providing services to others and that the benefits of a productive, 
well-functioning business extend beyond the individual organization. However, the record lacks 
sufficient evidence to establish a strong connection between the proposed endeavor activities and job 
creation or tax revenues on a level commensurate with national importance. In Dhanasar, we 
determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national 
importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec at 893. 
Similarly, the proposed endeavor may very well positively impact the individuals and businesses that 
engage the Petitioner for his services, but the evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's services 
will be available on a level that creates national or global implications in the IT field. Without 
sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's services would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
While the articles and reports provide helpful background information, we nevertheless conclude that 
none of the reference materials discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. As the Director 
explained, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
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 id. at 889. We acknowledge the 
importance of IT and STEM fields and also of addressing the nation's shortage of IT professionals; 
however, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how his work as an IT Director for his own 
company would resolve the shortage or produce an impact rising to the level of national importance. 
Returning to the Petitioner's letters of recommendation, we again acknowledge the authors' praise of 
the Petitioner's work and the successful results he achieved for companies and their clients. However, 
these letters do not discuss the proposed endeavor or provide specific details on its national 
importance. Therefore, the letters do not offer support for the conclusion that that the proposed 
endeavor has national importance. 
As discussed above, it is not apparent that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor activities would operate 
on such a scale as to rise to the level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor 
9 
has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such 
claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not duly consider certain pieces of evidence 
and failed to apply the correct standard of proof when reviewing the evidence. In support, he relies 
primarily upon the evidence and arguments previously submitted. While we acknowledge the 
Petitioner's appellate claims, we nevertheless conclude that the documentation in the record does not 
sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong 
of the Dhanasar precedent decision. In addition, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in not 
providing analysis of his eligibility under the second and third Dhanasar prongs. As the Petitioner 
must establish eligibility under each Dhanasar prong, a failure to do so under any single prong would 
necessarily negate eligibility for a national interest waiver overall. Therefore, while we acknowledge 
the Petitioner's argument that the Director erred in not further analyzing the Petitioner's eligibility, 
we conclude that the Petitioner has not explained how providing such analysis would have changed 
the outcome of the Director's decision. 
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). In addition, the documentation 
in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the 
first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the remaining 
Dhanasar prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. 
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) ("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). 
As the Petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements of the underlying EB-2 
classification or the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he 
has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10