dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Physical Therapy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12363008 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 28, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
A self-petitioning physical therapist assistant seeks second preference immigrant classification as 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability, but that he had not established that his proposed 
endeavor is of national interest, or that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director improperly weighed and failed 
to consider all the evidence. The Petitioner contends that his proposed work as a physical therapist is 
in the national interest, and thus a waiver of the job offer and labor certification should be granted. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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 (emphasis added), 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, orb usiness, 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 101 (a)(32) of the Act 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)(ii). 
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).1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion,2 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. 3 
11. ANALYSIS 
A Eligibility for the Underlying Classification 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified as an individual with exceptional ability based upon 
the satisfaction of at least three of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), namely (A), (B), and (C), 
relating to the Petitioner's academic record, letters from current or former employers evidencing at least 
ten years of full-time experience, and a license to practice the profession. However, upon de nova review, 
we question the evidence concerning the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying classification as an 
advanced degree professional and as an individual of exceptional ability. We conclude that the 
evidence in fact does notsupporteligibilityforthe underlying classification and therefore we withdraw 
the Director's statements concludingotherwise.4 Moreover, we observe the Director did not undertake 
a final merits analysis subsequent to determining that the Petitioner satisfied three of the six criteria. 
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 noted in the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner's academic record indicates that he 
failed more than one course in pursuit of his foreign bachelor of science degree in physiotherapy. It is 
unclear why failed courses would lead to the conferment of a deree with "honours," as is stated on the 
academic record. In his RFE response, the Petitioner provided a_ I 
academic equivalency evaluation that appears either not to acknowledge ,__ ___________ ___. 
these failed courses or alternatively characterizes them with a passing grade. The evaluation appears to 
base the determination upon the conclusion that "50% is the minimum passing mark in the faculties of 
Basic Medical and Clinical Sciences."5 The evaluation does not provide documentation or citation to 
support such a conclusion concerning the minimum passing mark. Further, it is not well explained why 
a failing grade in the foreign academic record would constitute a passing grade under U.S. standards. 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir. 20 l 9)(finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest wa iverto bed iscretionary in nature). 
3 See Dhanasar, 261 &N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on thesethreeprongs. 
4 Statements within the record suggestthat the Petitionerwould like to be considered as an advanced degree professbnal 
in add it ion to an individual with exceptional ability. 
5 The Petitioner scored below 50 out of 100 in numerous courses. As such, the evaluator's determinations are not well­
explained. 
3 
Additionally, the evaluation states that the Petitioner's education at the time of graduation is "not 
substantially equivalent to the first professional degree in physical therapy in the United States at the time 
of graduation" ( emphasis added). The evaluation states that the Petitioner obtained sufficient credit hours 
for a U.S. bachelor's degree equivalency, butthat his education lacked required courses in the humanities 
and social sciences, as well as professional physical therapy course content in the area of delegation. A.s 
such, it does not appear as though the Petitioner possesses a degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree 
in the relevant field. 
When examining th~ I Evaluation Checklist, we note that it lists several courses that are not 
accounted for in the Petitioner's academic documents. For instance, the checklist includes information 
suggestingthatthe Petitionertookl.15 credithours'worthof land use, agriculture, and animal husbandry, 
but this course does not appear to be listed within the educational documents provided. Another example 
is a reference to a psychology class, but such a course also does not appear in the academic records 
provided. The evaluation states that these credit and content equivalency determinations were justified 
based upon the official university transcript and course descriptions. The record does not contain course 
descriptions, nor is itapparentwherethe evaluator finds support in the transcripts for the Petitioner having 
taken these and several other courses. 
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 may discount or give less weight to 
that evaluation. Id. Consistent with Sea, we hereby decline to assign this evaluation any meaningful 
evidentiary weight and therefore question whether the Petitioner has established that he meets this 
regulatory criterion.6 Here the Petitioner has provided academic documentation indicating failed courses 
in pursuit of a foreign physiotherapy degree that is not equivalent in content to a U.S. bachelor's degree 
in physical therapy, as well as an academic equivalency evaluation that draws conclusions from 
documentation not included in the record. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s)from current or former employer(s) showing thatthe alien 
has at least ten years offull-timeexperience in the occupationforwhich he or she is being 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
The record contains! I Government documents verifying the Petitioner's employment in the 
field of physiotherapy and that such employment was for at least ten years. While it appears that the 
Petitioner may have satisfied th is criterion, doubt is cast upon the document d ueto the alternative spelling 
used for the Petitioner's name. As the Petitioner has not claimed this name as an alias or other name 
used, we question the credibility of the document containing it, particularly as it does not match the 
name spelled on his academic degree or otherl I Government documents. The record, as it 
currently stands, is not sufficient to satisfy this criterion. 
6 The record contains an "O Level" certificate, which is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. high school education. While 
such a certificate is not directly relevant to the equivalency of a bachelor's degree, we observe that the name on the "O 
Level" certificate includes a name different from the Petitioner's. The Petitioner has not claimed C:J as an alias or 
other name used. though it appears on the "O Level" certificate. Fu rt her, the Petitioner has not explained why an alternative 
spelling,! l'is used for his first name. These unacknowledged and unexplained inconsistencies cast doubt of the 
veracityofthePetitioner's academic records as a whole because it suggests they could belong to a different person. 
4 
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 submitted evidence that he possesses a temporary and limited physical therapy assistant 
license, which is set to expire two months after the filing of the petition. However, it should be noted that 
this temporary and limited license establishes permission to practice as a physical therapy assistant, not 
a fully licensed practitioner within the physical therapy field. Before the Petitioner is eligible to take the 
full and permanent physical therapy licensing exam, the record indicates that he must complete certain 
required courses lacking from his foreign education. As of the time of filing, the Petitioner had not 
completed these courses or sat for the full and permanent licensing exam.7 
In addition, the record includes conflicting evidence concerning the Petitioner's license to practice in his 
home country. We reviewed the licensing certificates in the record, the most recent of which expired in 
December 2016. Thel I evaluation alternatively states that the Petitioner's license to practice 
physiotherapy in Nigeria expired in December 2018. We acknowledge a January2020 letter from the 
licensing board that states the Petitioner currently holds a license in Nigeria, however this letter was dated 
after the petition filing and submitted with the Petitioner's RFE response. As such, it is not apparent 
whether the Petitioner held a license to practice physiotherapy in his home country at the time of the 
petition filing. Once again, the licensing board uses an alternate spelling for the Petitioner's first name, 
one which does not match the name spelled on the academic degree. Therefore, the evidence is 
insufficient to conclude that at the time of filing the Petitioner possessed a full and permanent license or 
certification to practice physical therapy, as opposed to a physical therapy assistant. The record, as it 
currently stands, is not sufficient to satisfy 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 did not submit evidence of his salary or other remuneration for services. Therefore, he 
has not satisfied th is criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that he became a member of the Nigeria Society of Physiotherapy in 
September 1997. While the certificate photocopy is blurred in areas and cannot be fully read, it appears 
as though he obtained sufficient experience to be qualified as a member of this association simply by 
virtue of graduating. The Petitioner has not provided evidence that he is currently a member of this 
association, particularly considering he has lived in the United States since 2016. Further, he has not 
established that this original membership continues in perpetuity. His certificates of participation in 
various courses and workshops held by the Nigeria Society of Physiotherapy do not establish that he is a 
7 The Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code selected by the Petitioner on the Form 1-140 is 2 9-1123, corresponding 
to "physical therapists"not physical therapist assistants. The Petitioner has not established that heis qualified to practice the 
profession he selected based upon his education and current licensure status. Moreover, despite the Director requesting a 
revised Form l-140tocorrect errors in the completion of the one originally submitted, the Petitioner did not provide a position 
description in the original 1-140 {Part Six, Item 3) orontherevised Form l-140submitted in his RFEresponse. The Petitioner 
has not established that his role as a physical therapy assistant is substantially similar to that of a physical therapist. 
5 
member of the association, but rather that he attended its events. Therefore, the evidence does not 
sufficiently establish membership in a professional association as of the time of filing. 
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) 
The Petitioner presented numerous certificates of participation and volunteerism in various athletic 
competitions. A few of the certificates indicate that the Petitioner was a medical volunteer, but most 
are simply certificates of participation. From these certificates alone, it is unclear whether the 
Petitioner volunteered in the field of physiotherapy and if so, the extent of his involvement. 8 These 
certificates do not establish achievement or contribution in the field of physiotherapy as much as they 
establish volunteerism in sporting events. Furthermore, there is little evidence that the certificates are 
recognized beyond the presenting institutions or are indicative of influence in the field as a whole. 
Turning to the letters submitted by former colleagues and classmates, we note some of them are 
unsigned. The authors offer general praise concerning the Petitioner's work ethic, dedication, and 
good character, but none of the letters establishes how the Petitioner received recognition for 
achievements or significantly contributed to the field. The authors acknowledge the Petitioner's 
interest in the field and that he performed well in various employment roles, but none of the letters 
corroborates that the Petitioner received recognition for achievements or made significant 
contributions to the industry. Similarly, the employment verification letters from thel I 
Government praise him as employee and acknowledge his work for the hospital, but do not support a 
finding that he contributed to the field as a whole. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied this 
criterion. 
Final Merits Determination 
We conclude that the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner has met any of the six regulatory 
criteria. When a petitioner has satisfied at least three of the six criteria, a final merits determination 
concerning the Petitioner's eligibility is still required per the two-part adjudication framework established 
in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In the final merits analysis, the quality of the 
evidence must be evaluated. Even if the Petitioner had satisfied the three criteria identified in the 
Director's decision, we would still conclude that the qualifications the Petitioner possesses appear to be 
similar to those possessed by most physical therapists in the field. For instance, it appears as if the Nigeria 
Society of Physiotherapy confers membership upon anyone who applies for it and has completed the 
relevant education. While the evidence insufficiently establishes membership in a professional 
association at the time of filing, even if it had, such membership would not indicate that the Petitioner has 
a degree of expertise significantly above that which is ordinarily encountered in the field. 
As previously described, there are evidentiary deficiencies concerning the Petitioner's academic 
credentials, while the licensure evidence consists of a possibly expired license to practice in his home 
country and a temporary/limited license to practice as an assistant in the United States. While we 
8 Numerouscertificatesusean alternate spelling for the Petitioner's first name. As previously mentioned, the Petitioner has 
not claimed this name as an alias orother name used. Therefore, we question the credibility of the documents containing 
this name. 
6 
acknowledge thatthePetitioner may have worked in the field in his home country for more than ten years, 
this appears to be more function of the passage of time since becoming a physiotherapist rather than 
indicative of expertise or qualifications rising above that of others in his field. Accordingly, even if the 
Petitioner had satisfied three of the six criteria, he would not have established how his expertise reaches 
a level significantly above that which is ordinarily encountered for physical therapists. 
Summary 
The record does not support the finding that the Petitioner met at leastthree of the six regulatory criteria 
for exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The Petitioner has not established the eligibility as 
an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2){A) of the Act. As previously outlined, the 
Petitioner must show that he is either an advanced degree professional or possesses exceptional ability 
before we reach the question of the national interest waiver. The Petitioner has not shown that he 
meets the regulatory criteria for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. Furthermore, 
due to the discrepancies and evidentiary deficiencies described concerning the academic record and 
its corresponding equivalency evaluation, we conclude that the evidence does not support a finding 
that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional. 
B. National Importance 
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 othetwise 
qualify for classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. However, because the Director 
determined the proposed endeavor lacked national importance, and the Petitioner's appeal alleges error, 
we will analyze the evidence and argumentspresented.9 As noted in the Director's decision, the Petitioner 
submitted insufficient evidence to establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance.10 On 
appeal, the Petitioner submitted a brief, largely containing evidence and arguments that were previously 
submitted and found to be insufficient. Although the Petitioner claims the Director improperly weighed 
and failed to consider evidence, the Petitioner does not identify any specific evidence or factors that the 
Director did not address. 
In claiming that his work will produce "tremendous results on [a] huge national and global scale," the 
Petitioner primarily relies upon his spinal cord research essay and his proposed endeavor plan. Below 
we address the shortcomings in of each these documents. 
The Petitioner argues that his research essay on spinal cord injuries is of "profound importance" in the 
area of physical therapy and that such work is "highly innovative." The research essay provided in the 
record reads similar to a research term paper written for school rather than that produced by a practitioner 
in the field. It is unclear what research the Petitioner performed independently as compared to what 
information he pulled from other authorities. He has not substantiated the claim that the work described 
in the paper is "highly innovative" when compared to the current physical therapy practices concerning 
spinal cord injuries. Likewise, he has not shown that others in the physical therapy field have adopted 
his practices to treat spinal cord injuries or taken any interest in his practices such that his work affects 
9 While we may not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have carefully reviewed and considered each one. 
10 The Director deteimined that the evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit 
and that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor. 
7 
the field of physical therapy as a whole. The Petitioner states in his essay that many physical therapists 
fail to recognize the importance of improving neuromuscular coordination during spinal cord 
rehabilitation and that the Petitioner developed exercises to address this. However, he has not cited any 
research authority or source for the claim that many physical therapists fail to recognize the importance 
of improving neuromuscular coordination. Nor has the Petitioner provided documentation to show how 
his exercises significantly improve spinal cord injuries in a manner in which other physical therapy 
approaches do not. Accordingly, the Petitioner's claims that his work is of "profound importance" and 
"highly innovative" are not supported by the record. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the potential prospective impact of the 
Petitioner's paiiicular endeavors as requested in the RFE. Specifically, the Director noted that the record 
did not convey how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would impact the field or U.S. economy more 
broadly, outside of the Petitioner's pool of patients and workplaces. Here, the Petitioner asserts that he 
will "enhance patient development strategies in the United States" and that he has already developed 
"methodologies" and a "custom technique." As previouslydiscussedconcerningthe Petitioner's research 
essay, the Petitioner offers only basic generalities and has not substantiated the record with a detailed 
explanation of the methodologies and custom technique he claims to have developed. We acknowledge 
his plans to "positively and immensely contribute to the body of knowledge in [the United States]," but 
find little indication in his plan of how specificallythiswill occur. 
In examining the plan, we note thatthe Petitioner proposes to work as a physical therapist for a local high 
school sports team for the first five years. The record contains little explanation as to how such work 
would have a national impact. Further, the plan does not include relevant details such as which high 
school(s) he will target, how the Petitioner plans to be considered or hired for such a role, and what efforts 
he has made to obtain such a position. 
The Petitioner's plan includes attending a three-year doctoral program for physical therapy starting in 
December 2020. The Petitioner does not address how much time he will spend as a doctoral student 
versus how much time he will spend as a physical therapist for a local high school's sports team. The 
plan does not include details for how he will pay tuition for his doctoral program, how attendin] the 
program will have a national impact, whether his preferred school, the University I has 
accepted him, or even whether he is eligible to enroll without a full and permanent license to practice 
physical therapy. 
Next, the Petitioner proposes to launch a physical therapytraining centerthatwill caterto recent graduates 
who seek advanced practice techniques. The plan does not include details on how the Petitioner plans to 
attract recent graduates, where the training facility will be located, how his practices will be more 
advancedthanwhatthe graduates would have recently learned in school, or howthetraining center startup 
costs will be funded. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's estimated budget and that he is seeking 
investments from the physical therapy community, he has not provided specifics on how these 
investments will be obtained and how much investment, if any, he has already collected. Finally, the 
Petitioner does not address how this training facility has national importance. 
The Petitioner also plans to join various associations and register for an instructor course so that he has 
the knowledge required to open the training center. The continuing education aspects of the Petitioner's 
8 
plan appear to be primarily for personal or professional enrichment, and he has not explained how his 
plans to attend an instructor course are important nationally. 
Apartfromthe research essay and plan, the Petitioner alsoarguesthathis proposed endeavor is of national 
importance and interest because physical therapists are in high demand and short supply. He cites how 
"Schedule A" applicants are "pre-certified and do not need to obtain a labor certification." Even accepting 
the Petitioner's arguments concerning shortages of physical therapists in the United States, this would not 
indicate that the Petitioner's work, which is localized to his own patients, practice, and proposed training 
facility, will affect the field on a national scale. Pre-certification due to labor shortages does not imply 
that the Petitioner's specific endeavor possesses national scale importance. 
As further argument, the Petitioner draws a comparison with physicians who work in a designated public 
interest or underseived area and are eligible for a national interest waiver. However, the Petitioner has 
not explained how the practice of physical therapy, which requires a bachelor's degree and licensure, is 
comparable to practicing medicine, which requires a bachelor's degree, medical degree, and licensure. 
C. Waiver of the Job Offer and Labor Certification 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Nevertheless, we briefly address the Petitioner's 
third prong claims. Although the Petitioner raises the issue of howthe Petitionerwouldserve the national 
interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker with the same minimum 
qualifications, the Petitioner does not present a cogent argument concerning it. Rather, the Petitioner 
repeats the criterion and claims to meet it based on the evidence without offering analysis to supplement 
his claim. He relies u pan a sweeping statement that the "overall value and potential" of the Petitioner's 
contribution to the United States is "unequivocal," along with a general reference to the accompanying 
evidentiary exhibits as justification for meeting this criterion. Again, the Petitioner points to the 
Petitioner's research essay and proposed endeavor plan, which we have already determined to be 
insufficient. 
Although the Petitioner generally references his employment history, workshop and volunteer certificates, 
activities and various events attended, as well as the roles and titles he has held in the field of physical 
therapy, he has not analyzed why this evidence has any bearing on the factors USCIS considers when 
determining whether it is beneficial to waive the job offer and labor certification. In order to meet his 
burden, the Petitioner must provide the evidence and also identify how the evidence applies to the 
Dhanasar framework. 
When viewed in the totality, the record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying 
classification, nor does it establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar. Therefore, further analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose.11 
11 Because the identified reasons ford ismissal are dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the arguments regarding the substantial merit aspect of the first prong of the Dhanasarframework, along with the 
second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies arenotrequiredto make 
9 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he qualifies for classification under section 203(b)(2) of the Act 
as a member of the professions holding advanced degrees or an individual of exceptional ability. In 
addition, the Petitioner has not shown that the proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
findings on issues the decision ofwhichis unnecessaiyto the results theyreach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I &N Dec. 
516,526 n.7 {BIA2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
10