dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Taekwondo

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 18, 2023 In Re: 26378701 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a self-enrichment teacher, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree or as an individual 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 EB-2 immigrant 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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that although 
the Petitioner established eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, the record did not demonstrate her eligibility for the requested national interest 
waiver. The matter is now 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) 
of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a 
bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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). The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "profession" as "one of the occupations listed in section 10I(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."1 
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).2 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification.3 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.4 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary 
waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Id. While neither the statute nor the 
pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar 
states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion5, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner 
demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a self-enrichment teacher by starting abusiness 
teaching taekwondo and self-defense to women. The Petitioner earned a bachelor of law froml I 
University in Brazil in July 2009, and has worked as ataekwondo instructor. 
We note that the Petitioner consistently asserted that she is eligible for the EB-2 classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability and did not claim eligibility as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established her eligibility for either EB-2 classification. 
1 Section 10l(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 ." 
2 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation , a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii) . 
3 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Polic y Manual F.5(B)(2) , https: //www.uscis .gov/policy-manual. 
4 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted 
and then , if it satisfies the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra at F.5(B)(2). 
5 See also 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). 
2 
A. Member of Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as a professional holding an 
advanced degree based on her diploma and academic transcript having the foreign equivalent of a U.S. 
bachelor's degree, and letters from her former employers showing she has more than five years of 
progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
However, upon de novo review, we find the record does not establish that the Petitioner is member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree. 
To qualify as a member of the professions, an individual must meet "one of the occupations listed in 
section 10I(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 into the occupation." 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(k)(2). The record does not establish that the Petitioner's occupation, a taekwondo instructor, 
requires the minimum of a bachelor's degree or its foreign equivalent for entry into the occupation. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that she qualifies as amember of the professions. 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(k)(2). 
Furthermore, although the Petitioner submitted letters from her previous employers stating she accrued 
experience as ataekwondo teacher after receiving her bachelor in law degree, she did not demonstrate 
that her experience was at least five years of full-time post-baccalaureate experience in her specialty. 
As noted, the record reflects that the Petitioner completed her degree in July 2009. The work 
ex erience letters from three employers indicate she worked as a taekwondo teacher for I I 
from 2004 to 2017 for ssociation from 2007 to 2011, and 
for,_________________ ___.from 2011 to 2014. While the letters indicate her 
years of employment and her main responsibilities as ataekwondo instructor, they do not indicate her 
work was full-time to demonstrate at least five years of experience. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated at least five years of post-baccalaureate employment experience. 
As the Petitioner did not establish that she is a member of the professions or that she has five years of 
post-baccalaureate experience in her specialty, the Director's determination that she is eligible to be 
classified as a member of the professions possessing an advanced degree is withdrawn. 
B. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
Because the Director determined that the Petitioner established her eligibility as a member of the 
professions possessing an advanced degree, the Director did not evaluate her claim that she qualifies 
as an individual of exceptional ability. 
The Petitioner claimed that she meets five of the six evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii) and otherwise qualifies for the requested classification with comparable evidence under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the Petitioner does not 
meet the initial evidentiary requirements for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
3 
An official academic record showing that the individual 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). 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of her diploma and transcripts for her bachelor of law from I,____ ___, 
University in Brazil in July 2009. Since the Petitioner's degree is in law and does not relate to her 
area of exceptional ability, she has not established that she meets the plain language of the criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that 
the individual has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for 
which he or she is being sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
The Petitioner emphasizes that she has more than ten years of experience as ataekwondo teacher with 
three employers from 2004 to 2017. As previously noted, the Petitioner submitted letters from three 
employers detailing the years she worked for each employer and her duties as a taekwondo teacher. 
The letters indicate she worked as a taekwondo teacher tori lfrom 2004 to 
20171 !Association from 2007 to 2011, and I II ltrom 2011 to 2014. However, the letters do not indicate she worked full-time, as required 
under the criterion. Therefore, the evidence does not demonstrate the Petitioner meets the plain 
language of the criterion. 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted two cards from the National Taekwondo League 
indicating that the Petitioner is a black belt with the entityI I Federation. One card was 
issued November 13, 2008, with validity to November 12, 2010, and the other card was issued 
November 12, 2016, with validity to November 11, 2018. The cards were not accompanied by 
additional evidence or an explanation of how it qualifies as a license to practice her profession as a 
taekwondo and self-defense instructor, or as a certification for her profession. 
The Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to satisfy the plain language of the criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
The Petitioner indicates she meets the criterion through her membership with the American 
Management Association and her membership with RCRA. For American Management Association, 
the Petitioner submitted a statement including her membership number and a printout of payment 
information. However, the Petitioner did not submit evidence documenting her membership with 
American Management Association. For RCRA, the Petitioner submitted a printout of her profile 
information indicating she was an active emerging member since August 23, 2021, with expiration 
August 22, 2022. 
The record does not include an explanation or information about the American Management 
Association or RCRA, including the meaning of the acronym RCRA, or how each of them are 
professional associations. The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner is a member of the 
4 
American Management Association, or that the American Management Assocaiton or RCRA are 
professional associations, as required under the criterion. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating her membership in a 
professional association under the criterion. 
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 indicates she meets this criterion by gaining recognition for significant contributions to 
communities for which she provided taekwondo and self-defense services. She submitted letters of 
recommendation from individuals in the field to support her claim. The letters are from her previous 
coaches and taekwondo athletes who met the Petitioner while she was training for belt exams and 
teaching. The individuals attest to the Petitioner training, competing, and taking exams as ataekwondo 
athlete, and generally recommend the Petitioner as a martial arts teacher due to her taekwondo 
competencies, her teaching capabilities, and her dedication to teaching self-defense to women. While 
the letters attest to the Petitioner being a competent taekwondo athlete and teacher, they do not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to 
the industry or field, as required under the criterion. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence under this criterion. 
The Petitioner also submitted documentation as comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
According to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii), if the regulatory criteria standards under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) do not readily apply to a petitioner's occupation, comparable evidence may be 
submitted to establish the eligibility for exceptional ability. When evaluating such comparable 
evidence, USCIS considers whether the criteria are readily applicable to a petitioner's occupation and, 
if not, whether the evidence provided is truly comparable to the criteria listed in the regulation. 6 The 
Petitioner should explain why the evidence it has submitted is comparable. General assertions that 
any of the six objective criteria do not readily apply to the Petitioner's occupation are not acceptable.7 
Here, the Petitioner submitted documentation described as "other comparable evidence of eligibility." 
However, she does not explain why the evidence is comparable or why any of the regulatory criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) do not apply to her occupation. The Petitioner provided an 
article on self-defense, two certificates recognizing her service to women, photo ra hs de ictin the 
Petitioner teaching taekwondo and takin her belt exam letters from the
I I Brazil and from the..___________________ ..... recognizing the 
Petitioner for teaching taekwondo and self-defense to women, and a list of her medals8. 
Without further information how this evidence is comparable to the regulatory criteria, we are unable 
to determine that it is comparable evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). Instead, the 
6 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
7 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
8 While the Petitioner submitted a list of her awards and medals, the record does not include independent evidence 
supporting her claims that she received the awards and medals. 
5 
evidence appears to be general additional evidence to be considered in assessment of exceptional 
ability. If the Petitioner had met three of the regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)­
(F), this evidence would be considered in the final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that the Petitioner is recognized as having adegree of expertise significantly above 
that ordinarily encountered in the field. 9 
The Petitioner has not established that she meets any of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(i i)(A) through (F) or that the indicated comparable evidence meet any of the criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). Since the Petitioner did not satisfy the initial evidence requirements, we 
need not conduct a final merits analysis to determine whether the evidence in its totality shows that 
she is recognized as having adegree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed 
the record in the aggregate and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has 
established the recognition required for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
C. National Interest Waiver 
Although the Petitioner has not established her eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification 
and is therefore not eligible for a national interest waiver, we will address the Director's determination 
that she did not establish her eligibility under the Dhanasar analytical framework. The Director found 
substantial merit in the proposed endeavor but concluded that the record did not establish that the 
Petitioner's endeavor has national importance and therefore did not meet the first Dhanasar prong. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that a waiver of the labor certification would be in the national interest.10 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 
at 889. If the Petitioner does not meet the first prong, the evidence is dispositive in finding the 
Petitioner ineligible for the national interest waiver, and we need not address the second and third 
prongs. 
In her personal statement, the Petitioner indicates she intends to start a business teaching taekwondo 
and self-defense. She plans to open a gym in the....._________ __, Florida "intending to 
reach a part of society that suffers from prejudice and is located in an area of economic depression" 
and "that also has high rates of domestic violence." The Petitioner would teach taekwondo and self­
defense classes to women, "mainly because of the large number of obese people" in the United States 
and to help women defend themselves in high violent crime areas of Florida. We agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit. 
9 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d at 1119-20; see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra at F.5(B)(2). 
10 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
To show the Petitioner's endeavor has national importance, her business plan describes its economic 
and social benefits. The business plan emphasizes her establishing the business in thel larea 
because the crime rate is high relative to other communities in the I I Florida area and 
entrepreneurs are not inclined to open businesses. Providing martial arts classes to low-income 
individuals in a community having higher crime rates would help women "who are victims of domestic 
violence and street violence defend themselves and gain respect within society." The business plan 
also outlines the economic benefits of the business by providing the Petitioner's projections for hiring 
staff and generating business revenue. Further illustrating her eligibility for the national interest 
waiver based on her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner provided her personal statement and resume, 
recommendation letters from individuals in the field, and an expert opinion letter. 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish the importance of the endeavor on 
a national scale or in her field. While the Petitioner provided claims of social and economic benefits 
on a national scale, the Director concluded that the evidence showed the impact of her proposed 
endeavor would be limited to her company and students, instead of having a broader impact on a 
national scale or in her field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner highlights assertions in her business plan and argues that her proposed 
endeavor will have "significant potential for impact and consequently, national importance" by 
generating jobs at the business and training qualified professionals who will take her technique in the 
taekwondo field "to the entire American territory." She also contends that after five years, the business 
will expand "to different regions of the United States," thereby having national implications. The 
Petitioner also argues that since her headquarters will be in thel Iregion of Florida, she "wi 11 
be contributing directly to an American economically depressed region." (emphasis in original). 
The Petitioner relies on data in her business plan to show that the I I area has lower income 
compared to other areas of Florida. The Petitioner also relies on her business plan to demonstrate the 
growth of taekwondo within the martial arts industry and the intended growth of employment 
opportunities for self-enrichment teachers in Florida. Upon de nova review, we find the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that her endeavor satisfies the national importance 
element of Dhanasar 's first prong, as discussed below. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 l&N Dec. at 889-890. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national 
importance, as required by the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a 
particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances" and endeavors that have broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area." Id.; see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra at F.5(D)(I). 
The Petitioner's business plan expresses her desire to contribute to the United States and an 
economically depressed area. However, she has not established with specific, probative evidence that 
her endeavor will have broader implications in her field, will have significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers, or will have other substantial positive economic effects in an economically depressed area. 
The Petitioner's business plan provides an analysis of the self-enrichment and taekwondo teaching 
industries, the potential growth and popularity of taekwondo, the impacts of offering her services to 
7 
women, and demographic data for thel Iarea. The business plan further describes the 
business's marketing strategies; use of virtual teaching tools; operational plans for staffing, salaries, 
and business space; plans for obtaining investments for working capital; and financial projections for 
revenue and costs. 
The business plan includes proposals for obtaining investments for the business's working capital and 
projections for its staffing and finances. However, the record does not adequately explain the basis 
for the investment proposals, staff projections, and financial forecasts, or how these will be realized. 
The business plan indicates the new business will require working capital to maintain its operations 
and proposes to "hold investment rounds aimed at three specific types of investors: I II I Without credible plans for funding the operational 
expenses of her business, the potential prospects of starting the Petitioner's business appears to be in 
doubt. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner also has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in her business plan, 
that her business' future staffing levels and business activities stand to provide substantial economic 
benefits to depressed areas of Florida and the United States. While the business plan provides data on 
the I I area, the record does not include independent, probative evidence of it being an 
economically depressed area or that the Petitioner's business will have positive economic effects. 
Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record lacks sufficient 
evidence showing that creation of jobs and paying wages for her business rises to the level of national 
importance. Also, the economic and societal welfare benefits that the Petitioner claimed depend on 
numerous factors and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between her 
taekwondo teaching and the claimed economic and societal welfare results. 
To further su art the national importance of her endeavor, the Petitioner submitted an expert opinion 
from adjunct professor of business, entrepreneurship, and sports management at 
___ College. While the opinion states the Petitioner's proposed endeavor "will broadly enhance 
societal welfare or cultural enrichment", it focuses on the Petitioner's work being in an area of 
substantial merit and national importance. It describes how employment for fitness instructors and 
trainers is projected to increase faster than other occupations due to a continuing emphasis on 
combating obesity and the health benefits of physical activity. The opinion provides data stating the 
economic benefits of increased physical activity through savings in healthcare expenses. The opinion 
generally states that the Petitioner's "expertise in martial arts validate her capacity to implement her 
knowledge to the United States" and "could highly benefit the American population." The opinion 
focuses on the need for physical fitness trainers and instructors and how the Petitioner's experience in 
taekwondo makes her well positioned to train taekwondo students and having them compete on a 
national level, instead of the Petitioner's specific endeavor having a prospective impact in her field. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron lnt'I, 19 
l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The submission of letters from experts supporting 
the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of D-R-, 25 l&N Dec. 445, 
460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on 
8 
relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, as noted, much of the content of the 
opinion is lacking relevance because it discusses the importance of the physical fitness industry and 
the Petitioner's occupation rather than addressing how the specific proposed endeavor would satisfy 
the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Simply stating that 
her work would support an important industry is not sufficient to meet the "national importance" 
requirement under the Dhanasar framework. 
In her personal statement, the Petitioner describes her training as ataekwondo athlete, competing with 
her university and the Brazil taekwondo team, and teaching taekwondo and self-defense. On appeal, 
the Petitioner once again highlights the importance of the taekwondo industry and her relevant 
training, skills, experience, and accomplishments. While important, the Petitioner's expertise acquired 
as an athlete and through her employment relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 
l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake 
has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
Similarly, the Petitioner's resume and recommendation letters only address her past accomplishments 
as ataekwondo athlete and teacher which impact her workplaces and students, and do not address the 
national importance of her endeavor's "potential prospective impact." Letters from her previous 
coaches highlight her taekwondo competencies and accomplishments as an athlete, and letters from 
other individuals in the field who have observed her taekwondo teaching highlight the Petitioner's 
work contributions to her students. We acknowledge that the letters demonstrate the Petitioner having 
been a taekwondo athlete and praise her dedication and competencies teaching taekwondo and self­
defense to women in the past. However, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and 
evidence based on these recommendation letters to demonstrate the prospective impact of her proposed 
endeavor will rise to the level of national importance, rather than only impacting her students. In 
Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. The letters do 
not indicate that the Petitioner's work will have national or global implications in the field of 
taekwondo or self-defense. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not met her burden to establish that her proposed endeavor 
would operate on such a scale as to rise to the level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim 
an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to 
corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline 
to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding her eligibility under the 
second and third prongs.11 
11 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 
issues in the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
9 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that she is eligible for EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions possessing an advanced degree or as an individual or exceptional ability under section 
203(b)(2) of the Act. In addition, as the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, we conclude that she has not demonstrated her eligibility for or otherwise merits 
a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated 
reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10