dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marine Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 05, 2024 In Re: 29669008 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Exceptional Ability) 
The Petitioner, a ship trading business, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a marine project manager 
under the employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts 
or business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary is qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional 
or as an individual of exceptional ability. In addition, having determined that the Petitioner sought to 
classify the Beneficiary as an individual of extraordinary ability under the Schedule A, Group II 
designation, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy the general documentation 
requirements for Schedule A occupations at 20 C.F .R. § 656.15(b )( 1) and (2) and demonstrate its 
ability to pay the offered wage. Finally, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish 
that the Beneficiary satisfies the Schedule A, Group II evidentiary requirements at 20 C.F.R. 
§ 656.15( d)(l ). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contests the Director's determination that it did not demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's eligibility for EB-2 classification and asserts that the Director erroneously adjudicated 
the petition under the Schedule A, Group II regulatory framework. The Petitioner maintains that the 
record reflects its intent to request a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement under section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act and requests that the matter be remanded to the Director for re-evaluation 
and issuance of a new decision. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's , Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Second preference immigrant visas are available for qualified individuals who are members of the 
professions holding an advanced degree 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. Section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is 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). 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself: establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide 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. 
Every petition under this classification must include one of the following three documents: (1) an 
individual labor certification from the Department of Labor, (2) an application for Schedule A 
designation, 3 or (3) documentation to establish that the beneficiary qualifies for one of the shortage 
occupations in the DOL's Labor Market Information Pilot Program. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(i). In 
addition, USCIS may exempt the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification for 
individuals of extraordinary ability and advanced degree professionals if an exemption would be "in 
the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii). While neither 
the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating petitions requesting a 
national interest waiver. 
II. EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
The primary issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established the Beneficiary's eligibility 
for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
We observe that the Petitioner's primary focus in its appellate brief is on the Director's decision to 
adjudicate this petition under the requirements applicable to Schedule A, Group II designation 
petitions. The record reflects that the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, as initially 
filed with USCIS, indicated that the Petitioner sought Schedule A, Group II designation. The 
1 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 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCTS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
3 Petitions for Schedule A occupations do not require a petitioner to test the labor market and obtain a certified ET A Form 
9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, from DOL prior to filing the petition with USCTS. Schedule 
A occupations are codified at 20 C.F.R. § 656.S(b ), for which DOL has determined that there are not sufficient U.S. workers 
who are able, willing, qualified. and available, and that employment of foreign workers in these positions will not harm 
the wages or working conditions of U.S. employees in similar positions. 
2 
Petitioner maintains that a review of the totality of the record demonstrates its consistent intent to 
request a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, regardless of any clerical error it made 
in completing the Form I-140. 4 It maintains the Director erred by denying the petition, in part, based 
on its failure to satisfy the evidentiary requirements for Schedule A, Group II designation at 20 C.F.R. 
§ 656.15(b) and ( d)(l ), and requests that the matter be remanded for adjudication under the 
requirements applicable to national interest waiver petitions. 
However, regardless of whether the Petitioner intended to request a national interest waiver or 
Schedule A, Group II designation, it must demonstrate that the Beneficiary is eligible for the 
underlying EB-2 classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 
as an individual of extraordinary ability. For the reasons provided below, we conclude the Petitioner 
has not met this burden. 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The record contains the following evidence relating to the Beneficiary's academic credentials from 
Brazil: 
• Graduation Diploma in Nautical Science conferred by the '-------------' 
.____________ _.upon the Petitioner's successful conclusion of the Merchant 
Marine Officer Training School Course in March 1994. 
• Brazilian Navy Ministry Maritime Professional Academic Record detailing the 
Beneficiary's dates of enrollment and courses completed over the course of six semesters 
atl Ibetween 1991 and 1994. 
• Brazilian Navy Maritime Professional Training School Certificate, issued byl I 
I I upon completion of a five-month course 
titled "Improvement for Machine Officers," in August 2005. 
• Advanced Diploma in International Maritime Law issued by the '--------~ 
I lin May 2017. 
The Petitioner submitted an "Evaluation of Education, Training, and Experience" prepared by a 
professor at'--------~ The professor indicated that, based on his three years of studies at 
I I the Beneficiary "satisfied requirements substantially similar to those required toward the 
completion of three years of undergraduate coursework towards a Bachelor of Marine Engineering 
from a regionally accredited institution of higher education in the United States." He flrther optned 
that, when combined with the coursework the Beneficiary completed in 2005 at the 
Beneficiary's education is "equivalent to a Bachelor Science in Marine Engineering from a regionally 
accredited institution of higher education in the United States." Finally, the professor indicated that 
4 The record reflects that on the Form I-140, as initially filed, the Petitioner checked boxes 1.d. and 2.b. under Part 2, 
Petition Type. Box 1.h. indicates that that the petition is filed for "A member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an alien of exceptional ability (who is NOT seeking a National Interest Waiver (NIW))," while box 2.b. indicates 
'The petition is being filed for the Schedule A, Group I or TT designation." In response to a request for evidence (RFE), 
the Petitioner stated the petition contained a "clerical error" and submitted a new Form I-140 on which it marked Part 2, 
box l .h, indicating the petition was filed for a noncitizen "applying for an NIW (who IS a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability.") 
3 
he had reviewed letters from employers documenting the Beneficiary's approximately 15 years of 
professional experience, which, when combined with his education, is "the equivalent of a Master's 
degree in Marine Engineering." 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director observed that the evaluator's assessment of the 
Beneficiary's three-year degree does not conclude that he holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. 
bachelor's degree or higher, as required. The Director also emphasized that "where the analysis of the 
Beneficiary's credentials relies on a combination oflesser degrees and/or work experience, the result 
is not the equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate or foreign equivalent degree." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "USCIS' decision on the Beneficiary's academic credentials does 
not reflect a serious consideration of the various sources of evidence that establish [he] possesses the 
qualifying university credentials to meet the requirements of possessing a U.S. baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2)." 
However, the Petitioner does not specify what evidence the Director failed to consider, nor does it 
address the specific deficiencies addressed in the decision. To be eligible under section 203(b)(2)(A) 
of the Act, and to meet the definition of advanced degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2), the Beneficiary 
must have a single degree that is the "foreign equivalent degree" to a United States master's degree or 
a single degree that is the "foreign equivalent degree" to a United States baccalaureate degree plus 
five years of progressively responsible work experience. So, the credential evaluation provided here, 
which evaluates the Beneficiary's equivalency to a U.S. bachelor's degree based on a combination of 
foreign educational credentials, is not probative to establish his categorical eligibility for classification 
as an employment based second preference immigrant. 
Further, both section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act and the regulations contemplate only a single degree, 
not a combination of education and experience claimed as the equivalent, in aggregate, of a degree. 
Therefore, the evaluator's determination that the Beneficiary has the equivalent of a master's degree 
based on a combination of two academic credentials and more than five years of work experience is 
not sufficient to show that he is eligible for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. 
Credential evaluations are reviewed for advisory purposes only; if questionable in any way, USCIS 
may give them less weight. Matter o_f Caron Int'!. 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r) 1988). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary 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 the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
holds 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 postbaccalaureate experience consistent 
with the definition of "advanced degree" at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Therefore, we agree with the 
Director's determination that he does not qualify for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional. 
4 
B. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
To establish eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, a petitioner must submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), 
summarized below: 
(A) An academic degree relating to the area of claimed exceptional ability; 
(B) Ten years of full-time experience in the occupation; 
(C) A license or certification for the profession or occupation; 
(D) A salary or other remuneration that demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Membership in professional associations; and 
(F) Recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field. 
In denying the petition, the Director addressed evidence submitted in support of all six criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) and determined that the Beneficiary met none of the requisite three 
criteria. As such, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's determination is "tainted by abuse of discretion, 
prejudice and is arbitrary and capricious conduct in its review and analysis of the evidence." The 
Petitioner also maintains that the Director relied on "factors which Congress did not intend for the 
agency to consider," "produced simplistic analysis and interpretations of the evidence," and "failed to 
acknowledge the facts and to articulate a satisfactory explanation for the denial." However, the 
Petitioner does not address with specificity any alleged errors of fact or law in the Director's analysis 
of the exceptional ability criteria. 
Upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary satisfies the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), which requires an official academic record showing that he has a 
degree diploma, certificate, or similar award from an institution of learning, relating to the area of 
exceptional ability. The academic credentials discussed in the preceding section are sufficient to meet 
this criterion. However, for the reasons provided below, we agree with the Director's determination 
that the Petitioner did not submit evidence showing that the Beneficiary meets at least two of the 
remaining criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)-(F). 
Evidence in the form of letter(s)from current or former employer(s) showing that the 
individual has at least ten years offitll-time experience in the occupation for which he 
or she is being sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted employment verification letters from the 
Beneficiary's employers and recommendation letters from his current and former colleagues. The 
Director determined, however, that the employment verification letters submitted did not satisfy the 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l) and did not establish ten years of full-time experience in the 
occupation for which the Beneficiary is being sought. 5 
5 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(l) states, in relevant part, that"[ e]vidence relating to qualifying experience shall 
5 
The Petitioner's evidence included: 
• Employment verification letter dated December 14, 2020, from the CEO ofl I 
._______ __.I The letter states that this company has employed the Beneficiary as New 
Projects Director since February 1, 2017, but does not state his employment was foll time. 
• Employment verification letter from the human resource~s_d_i_r_ec_t_o_r_o_f....l ----------~I 
company," stating the Beneficiary was employed by._l_______ ____.I in a foll-time 
position as "director" between Janual)'. 2013 and January 201 7. 
• Employment verification letter from[ Iconfirming the Beneficiary's 
employment with this company's operations in Angola and in Gabon (as country manager) 
between April 2009 and February 2013. The letter contains a description of the Beneficiary's 
duties but does not state he was employed foll-time. 
• Employment verification letter form 1.---------------.1 stating that the 
Beneficiary worked as general manager of I !Gabon" from 2009 to 2013. The 
letter does not contain a description of the Beneficiary's duties or state he was employed foll­
time. 
• Letter from the executive director of I Istating that the beneficiary served as tugboat 
manager for the I I branch of'---------------~ company, 
between October 2006 and March 2009. The letter does not include a description of the 
Beneficiary's duties or indicate that he was employed foll-time. 
As noted, the Petitioner also submitted recommendation letters in support of the petition. Some of 
these letters contained information that appears to be inconsistent with the information provided in the 
employment verification letters. For example, while the letter from a representative ofl I 
indicates that the Beneficiary commenced employment with I I in January 2013, 
a letter from an operations director/partner of this company states that the Beneficiary accepted a 
position in December 2013. Further, a letter from the president of~----~states that the 
Beneficiary has worked for his company as a consultant for an unspecified period beginning in 2018 
and it is unclear how he may have divided his time between this company andl I In addition, the 
letter froml lwhich purports to verify the Beneficiary's experience with this Brazilian company 
from February 2017 until at least December 2020, does not reference the fact that the Beneficiary has 
been physically present in the United States since his last admission in July 2018. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not meet its burden to demonstrate the Beneficiary meets this 
criterion, the Director emphasized that some letters lacked the employer's address while some of the 
letters lacked specific dates and descriptions of the duties he performed and whether he was employed 
on a foll-time basis. On appeal, the Petitioner generally alleges error in adjudication of its request that 
the Beneficiary be classified as an individual of exceptional ability without addressing the Director's 
specific reasons for finding the evidence insufficient to meet this regulatory criterion. For the reasons 
discussed, we agree that the Petitioner did not submit letters that comply with both 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.l(g)(l) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), and which document the Beneficiary's ten years of 
foll-time employment in the occupation for which his services are sought. 
be in the form ofletter(s) from current or former employer(s) and shall include the name, address, and title of the writer. 
and a specific description of the duties performed by the [noncitizen]." 
6 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for 
services, which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the individual has commanded a salary or 
remuneration that is indicative of their claimed exceptional ability relative to others working the field. 
The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary meets this criterion based on his offered salary of 
$110,000 for the position of marine project manager based in the.__ _______ ___.Texas areas. 
On the Form I-140, the Petitioner stated that his occupation falls within SOC occupational code 11-
9199, which corresponds to "Managers, All Other." 
The Petitioner provided Department of Labor wage data for SOC code 13-1198, "Project Management 
Specialists and Business Operations Specialists, All Other," which shows a mean annual wage of 
$90,660 in the I I metropolitan area. While the Petitioner's offered salary is higher than this 
average, the Petitioner did not indicate how an above-average salary is indicative of exceptional 
ability. We note the provided data includes a nationwide 75th percentile estimated annual salary of 
$104,410, which is just below the Beneficiary's offered wage, and a 90th percentile estimate of 
$135,220. Further, the Petitioner did not include comparable wages corresponding to the occupation 
it identified on the Form I-140, nor did it explain why it chose to submit wage data for a different 
occupation to satisfy this criterion. 
The Petitioner also submitted wage data from the Federal Labor Certification Data Center's Online 
Wage Library which indicates that the Level 4 I(folly c mpetent) wage for "Business Operations 
Specialists, All Other" (SOC code 13-1199) in the 1area is $110,614. This occupation likewise 
does not correspond to the occupation identified on the Form I-140 and no explanation was provided 
for the Petitioner's decision to use this data as a point of comparison. Nevertheless, it appears based 
on this wage that the Beneficiary's offered salary would be typical for someone with his claimed level 
of experience rather than an indicator of exceptional ability in his field. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted "Project Manager Salaries in I TX" obtained from 
Simplyhired.com which reflect an average wage of $85,132, a "top 25%" wage of $115,172, and a 
"top 10%" wage of over $151,100. This evidence indicates, at most, that the wage offered to the 
Beneficiary is above average. The submitted information from the website does not include a 
corresponding job description for the "project manager" occupation and we note that the same survey 
indicates significantly higher wages for related occupations such as lead project managers and project 
engineers. Regardless, the Petitioner must submit evidence showing that the Beneficiary has 
commanded a salary that demonstrates exceptional ability, and not just a salary that is above average 
for his occupation. For the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence ofmembership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
As evidence in slpport 01' this criterion the Petitioner submitted a letter from the president of the 
Propeller Club of who confirmed the Beneficiary's membership in this "traditional maritime 
club" as of November 2018. The letter describes the club as a chapter of the International Propeller 
Club of the United States, "an international business network group that is dedicated to the promotion 
of the maritime industry, maritime commerce and global trade." The membership confirmation letter 
7 
was accompanied by screenshots from the club's website, which states in its "Become a Member" 
section that "[ m ]emberships are open to anyone associated or interested in the Maritime trade." The 
Petitioner also submitted the bylaws of the International Propeller Club of the United States, and 
excerpts from this organization's website. According to Article 7 of the bylaws, "members shall be 
persons having a bona fide and active interest in the promotion of the maritime industry and allied 
industries." 
The Director acknowledged this evidence but concluded that the record does not contain evidence that 
the Beneficiary was still a member of the association at the time of filing. Further the Director 
emphasized that the Petitioner did not submit evidence establishing that either the International 
Propeller Club or its I I chapter "have a membership body comprised of individuals who have 
earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent or that the organizations otherwise 
constitute professional associations." 
The Petitioner does not address these specific conclusions in its appellate brief but rather generally 
alleges error in the Director's evaluation of the evidentiary criteria for exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). We agree with the Director's conclusion that the evidence does not support a 
conclusion that the Propeller Club ofI lis a "professional association" as contemplated by 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
As alluded to in the Director's decision. the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "profession" 
as any occupation having a minimum requirement of a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
for entry into the occupation. The record does not establish that the Propeller Club ofl Iwhich 
is "open to anyone associated or interested in the Maritime trade," is an association of professionals 
as defined in the regulations, and for this reason, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's 
membership in this club satisfies the regulatory requirement. We do, however, withdraw the 
Director's statement that "the petitioner did not submit evidence to show that the beneficiary's 
membership ... is indicative of him having a degree of expertise above that ordinary encountered in 
the field of business." The Petitioner need not make such a showing to establish that the Beneficiary 
satisfies the plain language of 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) 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted five recommendation letters written by the 
Beneficiary's previous employers and colleagues. The Petitioner suggests that the letters provide 
evidence of peer recognition and therefore satisfy this criterion. However, the letters do not 
sufficiently document that the Beneficiary has received recognition for achievements and significant 
contributions to the industry or field, as opposed to recognition for his achievements and contributions 
to his past employers. 
For example, a letter from the operations director for~------------~desc ribes the 
contributions the Beneficiary made to this company during his tenure there. The author states that the 
Beneficiary "completely transformed the performance of our company," obtained a key contract that 
"was a major landmark in terms of increasing our general revenue," and "was able to elevate our 
8 
company to an optimal state of performance that was evidenced in our results." He also credits the 
Beneficiary with advising the company's directors to sell to a larger European company, noting that 
this successful negotiation and sale "was exhibited in both local and European media as an historical 
economical movement and was celebrated in our industry." These statements indicate that the 
Beneficiary was a highly valued employee, but the letter is not accompanied by evidence showing he 
has received recognition for significant contributions to the industry or field. The author's general 
claim that the Beneficiary had some degree of influence over the company's well-publicized sale is 
not sufficient to establish he received recognition for achievements and significant contributions. The 
record does not contain support for a determination that the Beneficiary is recognized as the impetus 
for "an historical economical movement" or that his individual contributions have been "celebrated in 
[the] industry." 
The other recommendation letters are similar in scope, in that they commend the Beneficiary's 
expertise, work ethic and dedication, identify his achievements and significant contributions to 
specific projects carried out by his employers, and credit the employers' successes to his efforts. 
However, this evidence does not show that his work has been recognized beyond his employers and 
clients and their specific projects at a level indicative of "achievements and significant contributions 
to the industry or field." 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence related to a provisional patent application for al I I Icard screener. The application, filed with the U.S. Patent 
and Trademark Office in I 12020, lists the Beneficiary as co-inventor. The record does not 
contain evidence that this card screener invention has been recognized as a significant contribution to 
the industry or field as of the date of filing. The record contains background information regarding 
the I I program but does not demonstrate that the card screener the Beneficiary developed is in use 
or has garnered the required recognition from peers, governmental entities, business or industry 
organizations. We note that none of the submitted recommendation letters mention the I I card 
screener or its significance. Without additional context, we cannot determine the significance of the 
contribution or the degree to which it has garnered the Beneficiary recognition in his field. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the record "supports the qualifying recognition for 
the Beneficiary's achievements in the operation, management and recovery oflarge vessels in harsh 
environments." A recommendation letter from a human resources director atl I discusses 
the Beneficiary's contributions to several salvage projects, noting that the Beneficiary's expertise and 
efforts were critical to helping I I secure the contracts and to facilitating the projects' execution. 
However, the author does not explain how these projects represented significant contributions to the 
industry. For example, with respect to the salvage and removal of the ferry.________ ___, in 
Spain, the author emphasizes that the Beneficiary, through his connections, "was able to find a barge 
owner who would allow us to charter their barge and make significant deck modifications which made 
the recovery of the ferry much easier." The record contains evidence that some of these larger ship 
salvage and recovery projects, including thel Iwere featured in online industry media 
such as Shipwreck Log and Marine Link, but overall, the evidence does not establish that the 
Beneficiary received recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the overall field or 
industry because of his contributions to these individual projects carried out by his employer. 
9 
The Director concluded, and we agree, that the evidence does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary has 
been recognized by peers, governmental entities or professional or business organizations, for 
achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field. The Petitioner has not directly 
addressed this criterion on appeal and therefore has not overcome the Director's determination. 
C. Summary and Reserved Issues 
As explained above, the Petitioner has shown the Beneficiary meets one claimed criterion but has not 
met its burden to demonstrate that he satisfies at least three of the exceptional ability criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Considering the above conclusions, detailed discussion of the remaining 
criterion cannot change the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve discussion of the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 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). 
Further, we need not reach the Petitioner's claim that the Director erroneously adjudicated the petition 
under the regulations applicable to Schedule A, Group II petitions, rather than adjudicating its request 
for a national interest waiver of the labor certification and job offer requirements. Even ifwe were to 
determine the record supports the Petitioner's claim that it intended from the outset to file a national 
interest waiver petition, the Beneficiary would remain ineligible for the benefit sought. Therefore, it 
would serve no purpose to remand the petition for re-evaluation by the Director. A national interest 
waiver petition cannot be approved without an underlying determination that the Beneficiary qualifies 
for EB-2 classification. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the 
reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the Beneficiary 
is eligible for EB-2 classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
or as an individual of extraordinary ability. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10