dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medical Equipment Repair

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 16, 2024 InRe: 31134787 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner intends to own and operate a company that will maintain and repair medical equipment. 
He seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability or a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. 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 Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional. The Director also went on to 
discuss the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. Specifically, applying the three-prong 
framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner: (1) did not establish that his endeavor has substantial merit and national 
importance, (2) did not demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance the endeavor, and (3) did 
not show that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. The 
matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner has not established that he 
qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as an advanced degree professional I and because 
he has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor meets the national importance element of the first 
Dhanasar prong. Because the identified grounds for denial are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining 
elements of 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
1 The Petitioner does not claim EB-2 eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability and relies solely on the claim that 
he is an advanced degree professional to establish that he qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. 
Further, we adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the Petitioner's EB-2 visa 
classification as an advanced degree professional and the national importance element of the first 
prong. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 
230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has 
been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. 
INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may 
adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
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). 
Despite recognizing that the Petitioner was awarded the U.S. equivalent of a bachelor's degree in 
mechanical engineering, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he had at 
least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty of mechanical 
engineering. In discussing evidence pertaining to the Petitioner's experience, the Director pointed to 
the Petitioner's resume, which states that he worked as an "Electromedical Engineer or Technician" 
from June 2013 to July 2017 and from November 2017 to December 2018. He also looked at two 
employment letters, which also discuss the Petitioner's employment as a medical equipment 
technician. The record shows that the Petitioner was first informed of this evidentiary deficiency 
related to his experience in a request for evidence (RFE) to which the Petitioner responded with the 
employment letters referenced herein. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates information from his resume, where he listed his employment as 
that of mechanical engineer. However, in describing the two positions he held between 2013 and 
2018, the Petitioner listed his duties as "[e]lectromedical engineer or technician." (Emphasis added). 
While the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the two previously submitted employment letters verified 
his "professional growth and expertise in mechanical engineering," neither letter states that the 
Petitioner assumed the position of a mechanical engineer. Rather, the letter from ______ 
which discusses the Petitioner's employment from 2013 to 2017, states that he "worked as a 
Medical Equipment Technician in the sterilization area of the brand[] Steris"; and the letter fromD 
I I which discusses the Petitioner's employment from 2017 to 2018, states that he assumed the 
position of "Technician of Steris Technical Service." 
Thus, despite the claims made in the Petitioner's resume and on appeal, both of which list his prior 
employment as that of mechanical engineer, the employment verification letters do not support these 
assertions as both letters state that the Petitioner's post-baccalaureate experience was as a medical 
equipment technician. Given the listed evidentiary deficiencies, the Petitioner has not established that 
he has five years of progressive experience in the specialty and qualifies for the EB-2 visa 
classification as an advanced degree professional. 
In addressing the national importance element of the first prong of the framework set forth in Matter 
of Dhanasar, the Director discussed the Petitioner's intent to provide "experienced leadership" in 
establishing _______ a a company that would maintain and repair medical equipment in 
the United States. The Director determined, however, that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient 
2 
evidence demonstrating the prospective impact of this endeavor, noting that the Petitioner focused on 
his own expertise and the importance of the field of the endeavor rather than the endeavor itself. The 
Director also determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his work stands to impact the 
regional or national population or that it would broadly impact the U.S. economy at a level that is 
consistent with having national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not adequately assess the evidence and reiterates 
points made in the business plan that was part of the RFE response. However, the business plan lacks 
specific data to adequately support the Petitioner's assertions about his endeavor's prospective impact 
in terms ofjob creation and generation of direct and tax revenue. For instance, the personnel plan lists 
a CEO, an administrative assistant, and vaguely refers to an unspecified number of "consultants"; it 
also states that "additional staff members with expertise" may also be hired in the first year as well as 
"two more staff members to assist in services" during the second year. However, the Petitioner does 
not explain how these staffing projections stand to impact job creation at a level that is commensurate 
with national importance. 
Further, while the business plan projects a possible profit of $68,535 by the company's fifth year of 
operation, it is unclear how the anticipated revenue would result in an economic benefit that would 
impact the nation or the region in which the endeavor would operate. And while the business plan 
includes pricing estimates for the types of services the Petitioner plans to offer, it lacks sufficient 
information to show how the projections were calculated. The Petitioner also claims that his endeavor 
would result in other benefits, such as "increased healthcare efficiency" and "economic growth," but 
he does not adequately describe the scope of his endeavor or offer evidence demonstrating the 
endeavor's broader impact at a level that is commensurate with national importance. See Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. 
In sum, the appeal does not overcome the Director's adverse conclusions regarding: 1) the Petitioner's 
qualification for the EB-2 visa classification as an advanced degree professional or 2) the lack of 
evidence demonstrating the national importance element of the proposed endeavor as required by the 
first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
As previously stated, the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the appeal, and therefore 
we will not, at this time, address any evidence or arguments concerning the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the remaining elements of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 
( stating that "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 ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7 (declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3