dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 20, 2023 In Re: 30291423 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneurial marketing director, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or of exceptional ability, 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 employment based second preference (EB-2) 
classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. See Poursina v. USCIS, 936 
F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We rejected the Petitioner's appeal but subsequently reopened on our own motion. 
Consequently, the matter is again before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 53 7, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petition must first demonstrate qualification for 
the underlying EB-2 immigrant 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines exceptional ability as "a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business." To demonstrate 
exceptional ability, a petitioner must submit at least three of the types of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii): 
(A) 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; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer( s) showing that 
the alien has at least ten years of foll-time experience in the occupation for which he or 
she is being sought; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations. 
If the above standards do not readily apply, the regulations permit a petitioner to submit comparable 
evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
And 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. Whilst neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we 
set forth a three-prong analytical framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that USCIS may as a matter of 
discretion grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a 
petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen's proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the noncitizen 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
2 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petition to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Categorical Ineligibility for EB-2 Classification 
In the first instance, we note the Director's request for evidence (RFE) requested the Petitioner provide 
evidence to demonstrate their categorical eligibility for classification as an EB-2 permanent 
immigrant. The Director's decision made no express observations relating to the Petitioner's EB-2 
categorical eligibility. We conclude the record as it is currently composed does not contain sufficient 
relevant, material, or probative evidence of the Petitioner's advanced degree. So we conclude that the 
Petitioner is not qualified for EB-2 immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional. And 
the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 
immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability. So we conclude that the Petitioner is 
categorically ineligible for EB-2 immigrant classification. 
1. The Petitioner Has Not Sufficiently Demonstrated Eligibility For EB-2 Classification As An 
Advanced Degree Professional 
The evidence the Petitioner submitted into the 
record does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines advanced degree to mean any United States academic or 
professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a 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 and so permit 
classification as an EB-2 permanent immigrant. Progressive experience can be demonstrated by the 
Petitioner by providing letters from current or former employers showing that they have at least five 
years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. The regulation at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.S(g)(l) requires letters from current or former employers include the name, address, and title of 
the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed. 
The Petitioner claimed that they earned a juris doctor degree from Universidade I Iin 
November 2011. In support, they submitted a purported educational transcript with translation with 
an evaluation of education and work experience. The native Portuguese language transcript appears 
to be a computer printout with an ink stamp from the university and is dated September 1, 2011. The 
transcript does not contain a date of graduation, date of diploma issuance, or a date of diploma 
registration. And the transcript indicated the Petitioner had at least 33 classes that needed to be taken, 
3 
consisting of one minimum (noted by the initial "M") and 32 elective (noted by the initial "E") courses. 
So, the transcript indicated the Petitioner's claimed education was incomplete. 
The evaluation of education and work experience the Petitioner submitted was not relevant, material, 
or probative to evaluating whether the Petitioner had earned the single source equivalent of a United 
States advanced or bachelor's degree. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
states an advanced degree equivalency must consist of a single source degree, with no provision for 
substituting experience or combining lesser educational credentials with work experience. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
o_f Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). But, the evaluation the Petitioner 
submitted relies upon a combination of an incomplete degree and work experience to reach its 
conclusion. It does not comply with the requirements of the regulations. So, it is not of sufficiently 
relevant, material, or probative value to evaluating if the Petitioner's claimed educational credential is 
an advanced degree or its single source foreign equivalent. 
Consequently, the Director's RFE requested the Petitioner provide an official academic record 
showing they had earned a United States advanced degree or single source foreign equivalent. 
Alternatively, the Director invited the Petitioner to submit an official academic record showing they 
had earned a United States baccalaureate degree or single source foreign equivalent together with 
evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer( s) showing the Petitioner had a least 
five years of progressively responsible post-baccalaureate experience in their specialty. The 
Petitioner's RFE response and appeal do not cite or refer to the Petitioner's purported juris doctor 
degree earned in November 2011 or any other educational credential they claim is the single source 
equivalent of a U.S. advanced or bachelor's degree. Based on the evidence in the record, it is not 
apparent the Petitioner has earned the single source equivalent of a United States advanced or 
bachelor's degree. So the record does not contain adequate evidence to demonstrate the Petitioner's 
eligibility for EB-2 classification as a professional with an advanced degree. 
2. The Petitioner Is Not An Individual of Exceptional Ability 
The Director's decision did not evaluate whether the Petitioner demonstrated eligibility for EB-2 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. But the Petitioner submitted evidence in their 
initial petition for us to consider their eligibility for EB-2 permanent immigrant classification as a non­
citizen of exceptional ability. The evidence in the record does not sufficiently demonstrate the 
Petitioner's eligibility for EB-2 nonimmigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
An o_fficial 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 o_f exceptional ability; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
The Petitioner provided a copy of their dip,_l_o_m_a_fr_o_m_t_h_e._l---------------~ 
I I (translated asl ~ in "a 
professional education course in the business area with qualification in real estate transaction 
technician." For the Petitioner's certification to meet the criteria, it would have to be issued from a 
college, university, school, or other institution oflearning. The evidence in the record reflects I I 
~------------------~ (translated as I ] 
4 
Lr[________ __._I"""'is"-=a"""'tra.aa=-=;de union. It consequently appears Il~.----------~I (translated as l.--.,__~,__._._ _ ___._____________ .,__1,........,s 
not a college, university, school, or other institution of learning. So we cannot conclude that the 
Petitioner's certificate reflects they have earned a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a 
college, university, school, or other institution of learning related to the area of exceptional ability 
corresponding to their proposed endeavor. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s)from current or former employer(s) showing that the 
noncitizen has at least ten years offull-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 proposed to work as an entrepreneurial marketing director. In support of their 
experience with current or former employers, the Petitioner submitted three letters. The letters 
purporting to support the Petitioner's work experience in the specialty are not sufficient material, 
relevant, or probative evidence of at least ten years of the Petitioner's foll-time experience in the 
occupation they seek to undertake in the United States. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from~--------------~ to evidence their 
employment from May 2001 to March 2011. During this time, the Petitioner held numerous job titles, 
specifically real estate broker, real estate sales and marketing manager, and real estate sale and 
marketing director. The job descriptions the Petitioner provided are insufficient to conclude that the 
endeavor the Petitioner proposed to undertake in the United States and the duties they accomplished 
for their previous employer as director of sales and real estate marketing are the same occupation. For 
example, the Petitioner asserts as director of real estate sales they were able to "invest in the training 
and growth of other people, transmitting knowledge and generating unity." But it is not clear how this 
corresponds to the marketing director occupation. And, the evidence of the development of a 
"commercial strategy of sales of properties" the Petitioner accomplished as commercial and marketing 
director with I Idoes not adequately describe how this 
corresponds to the occupation of marketing director, which is the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. And 
it is not sufficiently described in the evidence contained in the record how "teaching sales brokers" 
and designing sales strategy for individual properties as a real estate broker or real estate sales and 
marketing manager relates to the occupation of marketing director the Petitioner intended to undertake 
in the United States. So the letter froml lis not evidence the 
Petitioner's employment was in the occupation they seek to undertake in the United States. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter fro__-...._______________ __,to evidence their 
employment from January 2008 to March 2011 as director of sales and real estate marketing. The job 
description is sufficient to conclude that the endeavor the Petitioner proposed to undertake in the 
United States and the duties they accomplished for their previous employer as director of sales and 
real estate marketing are the same occupation. But the Petitioner was employed at DI Ifor less than 10 years. So this letter standing alone does not serve 
as singular evidence the Petitioner's has the requisite 10 years of foll-time experience in their 
occupation. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from .________ --,I to evidence their employment from 
April 2011 to June 2015 as a real estate sales manager. But the job descriptions the Petitioner provided 
5 
are insufficient to conclude the endeavor the Petitioner proposed to undertake in the United States and 
the duties they accomplished for their previous employer as a real estate sales manager are the same 
occupation. For example, the description ofjob duties contained in the letter described the Petitioner 
"interviewing and select[ing] new real estate agents," "training and supervising the real estate agents," 
conducting sales marketing and strategy for individual finished units, scheduling, and negotiating sales 
and client and incorporator relationships. But the record does not sufficiently support how a real estate 
manager's duties correspond to the occupation of marketing director. It is therefore not evident if the 
Petitioner's employment withl Iwas in the occupation they seek to undertake in the 
United States. 
So, the letters they submitted from current or former employers do not support a conclusion the 
Petitioner has at least ten years of foll-time experience in the occupation of marketing director. 
Evidence of a license to practice the profession or certification for a particular 
profession or occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
In support of their licensure or certification to perform the duties of a marketing director, the Petitioner 
submitted a copy with translation of an identity card issued by I I 
I I identifying them as a real estate transactions technician. But this document is not persuasive 
to demonstrate a marketing director license or certification. 
Licenses and certifications show that a person has the specific knowledge or skill needed to do a job. 
A license, generally conferred by an official government body, confers legal authority to work in an 
occupation. A certification, whilst not always required to work in an occupation, generally requires 
demonstrating competency to do a specific job. 
At the outset, we note the Petitioner has submitted an identify card, not a licensure or certification. 
And the record does not convincingly establish the identify card relates to a licensure or certification. 
But even if we were to accept at face value that the identity card reflected a licensure or certification, 
we would not conclude that it met the criterion because it reflects the Petitioner is a real estate 
transaction technician. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to perform the services of a marketing 
director, not a real estate transaction technician. So we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has a 
license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation. 
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 contended they have commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which 
demonstrates exceptional ability. The Petitioner's prior employers submitted letters reflecting the 
Petitioner earned a salary of between R$300,000 to R$400,000 or between US$60,000 to US$80,000. 
But the record does not reflect the salary or remuneration expected for individuals of exceptional 
ability performing duties comparable to those the Petitioner intends to undertake so that context could 
be applied to evaluate the Petitioner's assertions. There is no evidence in the record which would 
permit us to evaluate the duties a marketing director of exceptional ability would perform for the salary 
and their remuneration as a point of comparison. So the Petitioner has not met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) because we cannot evaluate from information in the record whether the 
6 
Petitioner's salary or remuneration demonstrated their exceptional ability. 
Evidence ofmembership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
The Petitioner attested their possession of an identity card issued by 
I I identifying them as a real estate transactions tec._h_n_i_c-ia_n_w_a_s_e_v-id_e_n_c_e_o_f_t_h_e_. 
membership in a professional association. And, they also attest that they are a member of the 
American Management Association and assert this is evidence of their membership in a professional 
association. But the record does not reflect that I Iis a 
professional association. It appears from information in the record that it is a municipal business 
registration entity. And the record does not reflect whether the American Management Association 
indicated evidence of membership in professional associations. The record does not adequately 
describe the criteria for membership in the organization and consequently we are unable to conclude 
that membership in American Management Association is reserved for professionals. So the record 
does not convincingly describe the Petitioner's identification as a real estate transactions technician 
by ~------------------~ or membership in American Management 
Association as memberships in professional associations as that term is contemplated in the 
regulations, and we conclude the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
Evidence ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
The Petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation prepared contemporaneously with these 
immigrant petition proceedings to demonstrate that they have been recognized for achievements and 
significant contributions to their field by peers, governmental entities or professional or business 
organizations. But the evidence the Petitioner submitted did not meet the standard of proof because it 
did not satisfy the basic standards of the regulations. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 7 4 
n.7. The regulation requires evidence of recognition of achievements and significant contributions. 
When read together with the regulatory definition of exceptional ability, the evidence of recognition 
of achievement of significant contributions should show expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the field. 
The Petitioner's letters of recommendation largely credited them with contributions that increased the 
profitability of the ventures the Petitioner was participating in or employment tasks they had been 
assigned. The regulatory criteria requires achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field. The prizes, awards, or monetary success identified by the Petitioner was in the field of real 
estate and not marketing, which is the field within which the Petitioner proposed endeavor lies. But, 
even if the Petitioner's prizes, awards, or monetary success as described in the letters of 
recommendation were in the same field or industry as their proposed endeavor, we would not conclude 
that they reflected noteworthy achievements or significant contributions. The writers cited the 
Petitioner's sales prowess and highlighted the Petitioner's receipt of institutional awards for having 
generated sales either by the unit, lot, or total value. The Petitioner asserts the writers' conclusions 
alone constitute recognition of achievements and significant contributions. But these statements are 
not supported by any evidence in the record which reflects that these letters represent noteworthy 
achievements and significant contributions. And the simple competent and successful execution of 
7 
the Petitioner's job duties are not achievements or significant contributions to their field of endeavor. 
The writers do not adequately identify how the prizes, awards, or monetary success the Petitioner 
experienced is worthy of recognition as an achievement of significant contribution to their industry or 
field above that ordinarily encountered. So we cannot conclude that the Petitioner meets this ground 
of eligibility. 
The Petitioner has not established eligibility in any of the six criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). They cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). So we need not provide a final merits determination to evaluate whether the Petitioner 
has achieved the required level of expertise required for exceptional ability classification. 
Consequently, we conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated their eligibility for permanent 
immigrant classification in the EB-2 category. 
B. Eligibility for Discretionary Waiver of the Job Offer, And So a Labor Certification, in the National 
Interest. 
Ordinarily, only after determining the Petitioner's eligibility under the EB-2 category would the 
Director proceed to determine whether a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a 
labor certification, is warranted. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. But since the Director's decision 
here made specific findings about the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver in their 
decision, we will discuss the Petitioner's ineligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus of a labor certification, notwithstanding their categorical ineligibility for the 
EB-2 permanent immigrant classification. 
1. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
At the outset the Petitioner indicated marketing director as the proposed job title on their Form I-140, 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. They proposed their endeavor would "provid[e] property 
management firms with technical instruction, advisement, strategies and implementation of 
recommendation on how to increase revenues, expand profits, grow the business, recruit new and 
retain existing employees and provide better service to tenants and landlords of U.S. real estate." The 
Director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) to consider the merit of the proposed endeavor, 
its national importance, as well as their eligibility for a waiver of the job offer requirement and thus 
of a labor certification under the remaining prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner's response significantly departed from the proposed endeavor they indicated in their 
initial filing. The Petitioner morphed into an entrepreneur operating an entity engaged in the resale of 
lubricating products for vehicles, especially for the light, heavy-duty, and agricultural markets. The 
Petitioner submitted a business plan for an entity which would engage in the resale of lubricants, an 
opinion of an adjunct associate professor of marketing and management, and recommendation letters. 
The addition of the Petitioner's entrepreneurial business did not enhance or clarify the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor to be a entrepreneurial marketing director providing services to American 
employers. It transformed the proposed endeavor into a wholly different one. A petitioner must 
establish eligibility for the benefit they are seeking at the time the petition is filed. See Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petitioner may not make material changes to 
a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of 
8 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc Comm'r 1998). The Petitioner's RFE response constituted a 
materially different endeavor in an entrepreneurial business entity in a field wholly different from the 
one they purported they had expertise in. The materially significant transformation of the Petitioner's 
entrepreneurial endeavor rendered their proposed endeavor ill-defined and amorphous. The 
Petitioner's reversal introduced ambiguity into their proposed endeavor which prevented analysis into 
its substantial merit or national importance. 
The Dhanasar framework cannot be applied to two dueling proposed endeavors. A petitioner must 
identify the specific endeavor they propose to undertake. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. So it is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national importance of an endeavor 
when a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature of the endeavor. 
2. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
And we conclude the petitioner was not well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under the 
second prong the Dhanasar framework for the same reasons. In evaluating whether a petitioner is 
well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor, we review the following and 
any other relevant 
factors: 
• A petitioner's education, skill, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts; 
• A petitioner's model or plan for future activities related to the proposed endeavor that the 
individual developed, or played a significant role in developing; 
• Any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and 
• The interest or support garnered by the individual from potential customers, users, investor, or 
other relevant entities or persons. 
It is not clear how an individualized consideration of the multifactorial analysis under Dhanasar 's 
second prong would demonstrate how well positioned the Petitioner is to advance their proposed 
endeavor in light of the competing proposed endeavors the Petitioner put forward. But, even if we 
were to take the attestations at face value, the record as currently constituted would still not reflect 
how the Petitioner's prior performance of the duties described in the experience letters is either a 
similar effort as that of their proposed endeavor or how it constitutes a record of success. They 
similarly do not demonstrate the development of a plan or model for future activities that the Petitioner 
has developed or played a significant role in developing. The record does not reflect any progress to 
achieving the proposed endeavor other than establishing their company. The establishment of their 
company alone is not strong evidence of progress. Finally, the recommendation letters the Petitioner 
submitted are not material, relevant, or probative evidence in the record of interest or support in the 
endeavor the Petitioner proposed in their petition. A petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the 
initial burden of production, as well as the ultimate burden of persuasion. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N 
Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998); also see the definition of burden of proof from Black's Law 
Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (reflecting the burden of proof includes both the burden of production and 
the burden of persuasion). The Petitioner has not met their burden of proof with persuasive material, 
relevant, and probative evidence which by a preponderance demonstrates the national importance of 
their proposed endeavor. So the evidence in the record raises questions about how well situated the 
Petitioner would have been to advance their petition's proposed endeavor. 
9 
3. Whether on Balance a Waiver Would Be Beneficial 
The third prong requires a petition to demonstrate 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. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the national interest in their proposed endeavor is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
a waiver, and that the United States would benefit from their contributions to the field of endeavor. 
We agree with the Director that the record does not satisfy the third Dhanasar prong. The absence of 
a well-defined proposed endeavor can render balancing the benefit to the United States to waiving the 
job offer requirement and consequently a labor certification impossible. 
As the Petitioner has not established that they meet the first or second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, they have not shown that they are eligible for and otherwise merit a national interest 
waiver, and we reserve this issue. 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 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 demonstrated their categorical eligibility for EB-2 permanent immigrant 
classification. And the record contains insufficient evidence to establish they met the requisite prongs 
of the Dhanasar analytical framework. So we conclude they have not established that they are eligible 
for or otherwise merit a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion, with each reason being an 
independent ground requiring dismissal of this appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10