dismissed O-1B Case: Music Instrument Repair

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23101912 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 31, 2022 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a retail music store, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a ban instrument repair (BIR) 
technician . To do so, the Petitioner pursues 0-1 nonimmigrant classification, available to individuals 
who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of 
extraordinary ability in the arts: nomination for or receipt of a significant national or international 
award, or at least three of six possible forms of documentation. 
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. LAW 
As relevant here, section 10l(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work 
in the area of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations defme 
"extraordinary ability in the field of arts" as "distinction ," and "distinction" as "a high level of 
achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that 
ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent is renowned, leading , or well­
known in the field of arts." See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative initial evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either of 
nomination for or receipt of"significant national or international awards or prizes" such as "an Academy 
Award, an Emmy, a Grammy , or a Director's Guild Award," or at least three of six listed categories of 
documents. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(B). 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met."). Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows extraordinary ability in the arts. See section 
10l(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iv). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary has been 
nominated for, or has been the recipient of, significant national or international awards or prizes under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A). In addition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner established the 
Beneficiary's eligibility for only two of the evidentiary criteria: the lead, starring, or critical role 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3) and the significant recognition criterion under 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary satisfies one 
additional criterion, the high salary criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6). For the reasons 
discussed below, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets any of the claimed 
evidentiary categories. 
Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, in a lead, starring, or critical 
role/or organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation evidenced 
by articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications, or testimonials. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3) provides "[e]vidence that the alien has performed, 
and will perform, in a lead, starring, or critical role for organizations and establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation evidenced by articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications, or 
testimonials." Thus, this regulatory criterion requires a petitioner to show the Beneficiary's past and 
future leading, starring, or critical roles. Because the record does not establish that the Petitioner 
demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion, we will withdraw the Director's favorable 
decision for this criterion. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated: 
We asked the Recognized Experts to answer certain questions addressing the 
distinguished reputation of [the Petitioner] and the critical role that [the Beneficiary] 
will play in the future, which I will address in detail below. I will also describe below 
the critical role that [the Beneficiary] has played in the past. 
1 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, ·'truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 
As it relates to the Beneficiary's past role, the Petitioner claimed: 
While working at [the Petitioner] during the 24-month training period under her H-3 
Training Visa, [ the Beneficiary] also played a critical role for [ the Petitioner] . . . . [The 
Beneficiary] was literally a "beta test" of our training program. I have never had 
anyone under my training provide anywhere close to the amount of valuable 
constructive feedback as she did during her training under that visa .... 
When we applied for [the Beneficiary's] H-3 Training Visa, we provided details about 
a new training program that we developed for a new inexperienced BIR [band 
instrument repair] technician. Our two-year training program was extremely intensive 
and was designed to pack into two years the training that normally takes four to five 
years through traditional on-the-job training at a repair shop like [the Petitioner]. It 
was a cutting-edge training program to develop skills that was highly efficient and 
advanced to band-instrument repair (as we described in the H-3 petition) .... 
While working at [ the Petitioner] under her H-3 Training Visa, [ the Beneficiary] played 
a critical role at [the Petitioner] in other ways, as well. She established her record of 
achievement during her time at [the Petitioner] under her H-3 Training Visa. That is a 
tremendous plus to [the Petitioner]. It adds to our reputation at a critical time. She was 
also the first person from [the Petitioner] to establish contact and open a huge door for 
[the Petitioner] to music educators from school districts that we have never had as 
clients (through the for the I l Music Educators Association, which 
includes 14 counties). By doing so, she has established an extremely important 
foothold to vast new opportunities for business that we will need to meet our growth 
needs . . . . This is one of the new large growth opportunities that we have established 
at [the Petitioner] in the past few years that will be critical in moving forward. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted documentation regarding its training program, including a profile, 
syllabus, photographs, biographies of the trainers, and other self-prepared material. Again, this 
regulatory criterion requires evidence in the form of "articles in newspapers, trade journals, 
publications, or testimonials." Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how its evidence meets any of 
the required regulatory documentation. Moreover, the Petitioner did not support its assertions with 
newspaper articles, trade journals, publications, or testimonials consistent with this regulatory 
criterion. Furthermore, while the Petitioner submitted testimonials, which we will discuss below, none 
of the letters address or even mention the Beneficiary's past role with the Petitioner, including 
participation in the training program. Finally, the Petitioner did not show that it has a distinguished 
reputation, which we will also examine below. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that 
the Beneficiary meets this criterion based on her past role. 
In regard to her futuristic role, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary would play a critical role by 
possessing technical and creative skills, talents, passion, courage, loyalty, and entrepreneurial drive; 
3 
having the ability to quickly learn, communicate with musicians, train other BIR technicians, and 
attract new technicians and clients; and furthering its missions and building its reputation. As 
evidence, the Petitioner submitted testimonial letters with prepared questions and answers. In fact, 
the letters contained identical language. Specifically, each letter reflected: 2 
B. [The Beneficiary's] critical role at [the Petitioner] 
[The Petitioner] has asked me to answer the following two questions. 
(i) First Question and Answer. 
First Question: Do you believe that [the Beneficiary] will play a critical role at [the 
Petitioner] over the next three years (if she is allowed by users to work there during 
that period)? 
Answer to First Question: My answer to that question is Yes. 
(ii) Second Question and Answer. 
Second Question: Is your belief that [ the Beneficiary] will play a critical role at [ the 
Petitioner] over the next three years (if she is allowed by users to work there during 
that period) based, at least in part, upon the following? 
(1) my knowledge of [the Beneficiary's] talent and abilities, and her 
record of achievement in the BIR industry, 
(2) my knowledge of the current challenging business circumstances 
(including extremely difficult business climate) facing [the 
Petitioner] .... 
(3) my knowledge of the difficulty with finding and retaining basically­
qualified BIR technicians to fill positions at band-instrument repair 
shops in the U.S. (not mention the compounding effect on that 
difficulty of the additional qualifications required to be met with 
respect to the position that [the Petitioner] has offered [the 
Beneficiary] .... 
(4) my knowledge of the job qualification for the specific BIR­
technician position that [the Petitioner] needs to fill and has offered 
to [the Beneficiary] .... 
Answer to Second Question: My answer to that question is Yes. 
2 We note that letters from and did not address or mention the Beneficiary's role for 
the Petitioner. 
4 
The identical language suggests that the letters were all prepared by the same person and calls into 
question the persuasive value of the letters' content. See Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal 
II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *4, n.3 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (the court found our 
conclusion reasonable that the identical language in the letters submitted undermined their probative 
value). Moreover, the letters do not contain specific information explaining the authors' opinions. 
The letters, for example, do not elaborate and articulate why the Beneficiary's role for the Petitioner 
will be critical. Instead, the letters broadly claim that the Beneficiary will perform in a critical role for 
the Petitioner. Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 
F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). USCIS 
need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United 
States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Because the letters contain identical language, lack 
detailed information, and reflect diminished probative value, the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary will perform in a critical role for the Petitioner. 
As it pertains to the distinguished nature of the Petitioner, the letters similarly reflect the same format 
of prepared questions and answers and show identical language. 3 Specifically, the letters state: 
[The Petitioner] has asked me to answer the following question. 
Question: Does [the Petitioner] currently have (and has maintained for as long as you 
have known of [the Petitioner]) a highly-distinguished reputation in the field of BIR at 
the national level? 
Answer: My answer to that question is Yes. 
My Comments: I met I (the owner of [the Petitioner] professionally 
and have known him for at least the past [ ] years on a professional basis, and I am 
familiar with his experience and expertise in the field of BIR. Scott also currently has 
(and has maintained for a period that extends back beyond his acquisition of [the 
Petitioner] in 2005) a highly-distinguished reputation in the field of BIR at the national 
level. I also met and know two top of the technicians at [the Petitioner JI I 
and I professionally and I am familiar with their respective experience 
and expertise in the field of BIR. I I and also have highly-distinguished 
reputations in the field of BIR at the national level, which further enhances the highly­
distinguished reputation of [ the Petitioner] in the field of BIR. 
For the same reasons discussed above, the Petitioner's submission of testimonial letters, which contain 
identical language, lack detailed information, and reflect diminished probative value, do not 
demonstrate the Petitioner's distinguished reputation. Furthermore, the "My Comments" section of 
the letters briefly discuss individuals associated with the Petitioner rather than expounding upon the 
distinguished reputation of the business. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show its distinguished 
reputation. 
3 We note that the letter did not address or mention the Petitioner's reputation. 
5 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets the 
regulatory requirements of this criterion; and therefore, we withdraw the Director's favorable 
determination for this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has received significant recognition for achievements from 
organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the.field in 
which the alien is engaged. Such testimonials must be in aform which clearly indicates 
the author's authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's achievements. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5) requires "[e]vidence that the alien has received 
significant recognition for achievements from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other 
recognized experts in the field in which the alien is engaged," and "[s]uch testimonials must be in a 
form which clearly indicates the author's authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's 
achievements." Because the record does not show that the Petitioner demonstrated the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for this criterion, we will withdraw the Director's favorable decision for this criterion. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner claimed the Beneficiary's following achievements: 
• Invited and presented a clinic at the National Association of Professional Band Instrument 
Repair (NAPBIRT) 1-Januar 2020 
• Invited and presented a clinic in BIR at - November 2019 
• Invited and presented a clinic in BIR at - January 2020 
• Provided a clinic on BIR at the - January 2020 
• Wrote four articles for TechniCom and awarded a 2019 NAPBIRT 
Scholarship 
• Volunteered for positions and activities for NAPBIRT 
In addition, the Petitioner provided evidence of the Beneficiary's participation and attendance and 
based her eligibility for this criterion on the previously discussed testimonial letters. Similar to the 
discussion above, the testimonials contain prepared questions and answers with identical language. 
For instance, the letters ask whether the authors have knowledge of the Beneficiary's achievements 
and how they gained knowledge of her achievements. Moreover, the letters reflect: 
[The Petitioner] has asked me to answer the following two questions. 
(i) First Question and Answer. 
First Question: Is the following language true and correct as if stated by you? 
Each of the Recognized Achievements is clearly out of the ordinary and 
above and beyond what is expected from a BIR technician. Moreover, 
a record of more than a few achievements such as the Recognized 
Achievements becomes rarer among those within the BIR industry. 
Relatively few BIR technicians (i) have the ability, knowledge, skill and 
artistic talent required to realize achievements such as the Recognized 
6 
Achievements and (ii) then undertake the tremendous effort required to 
actually bring about those achievements ( all of which is done on a 
volunteer basis). Such contributions to the BIR industry are extremely 
valuable and necessary in the furtherance of the sharing and knowledge, 
skills and artistic talents with others in the industry. In the end, their 
achievements not only benefit other BIR technicians, but contribute to 
the success of musicians at all skill levels. 
Answer to First Question: My answer to that question is Yes. 
(ii) Second Question and Answer. 
Second Question: Is the following language true and correct as if stated by you? 
As a nationally-recognized expert in the field of BIR, I hereby recognize 
each of the Recognized Achievements as "achievement" in the field of 
BIR by [ the Beneficiary]. In addition, the record of achievement that 
[the Beneficiary] has accomplished at such an early stage in her career 
is extremely impressive and goes way above and beyond what is 
ordinary [sic] expected from a BIR technician at such an early stage in 
her career. She has gained a reputation amongst nationally-recognized 
experts in the field of BIR as a rapidly up-and-coming BIR professional. 
Answer to Second Question: My answer to that question is Yes. 
For the reasons previously discussed, the letters contain identical language, lack detailed information, 
and reflect diminished probative value. In addition, the letters do not contain specific information 
explaining the authors' opinions; rather, they generally assert that the Beneficiary has "recognized 
achievements." The requirement for this criterion, however, is that the Beneficiary has received 
"significant" recognition for her achievements rather than simply receiving recognition for her 
achievements. 
Furthermore, some of the testimonials reference their previously submitted recommendation letters 
presented at the initial filing of the petition. While these letters indicate the Beneficiary's 
achievements and accomplishments, they do not elaborate and explain how she received significant 
recognition consistent with this regulatory criterion. For example, I stated:4 
[The Beneficiary] has been quite active in her own professional development, having 
attended in regional and national NAPBIRT events, writing three articles (to date) for 
NAPBIRT's journal, TechniCom, and is now a NAPBIRT clinician, having presented 
or lrepair here atl I in November 2019 and repeated in I I 
California, shortly thereafter. [The Beneficiary] is scheduled to present at NAPBIRT' s 
international repair conference in IL next April 2021. [The Beneficiary] is 
becoming a leader in NAPBIRT, currently servicing asl I secretary. Outside of 
4 Although we discuss a sample letter, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 
NAPBIRT, [the Beneficiary] also trained 51 band directors on emergency repairs 
through her clinic, "Do It Yourselflnstrument Repair." 
Here, the letter lists events, including the authorship of articles, without articulating how she received 
significant recognition from her attendance or participation. While it praises the Beneficiary for her 
skills and abilities, the letter does not show what recognition she received or how that recognition rises 
to the level of significant. 
The issue for this regulatory criterion is whether the Beneficiary has received significant recognition 
for achievements from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the 
field. Here, the letters make broad, general statements without specifying how the Beneficiary 
garnered significant recognition for her achievements in the field. Without detailed, probative 
information explaining the significant recognition the Beneficiary received for her achievements, the 
Petitioner did not provide sufficient testimonial letters. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets this criterion, and we withdraw 
the Director's favorable determination for this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in the field, as 
evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6). 
The Petitioner indicated on the petition that the Beneficiary's wages will be "Commision-based [sic]." In 
addition, the Petitioner submitted an unsigned document entitled, "Payment Terms (Salary for 
Beneficiary)" reflecting the Beneficiary's salary as "Commission-Based (Commission Rate: 50%)" and: 
[The Petitioner], experienced repair technicians receive payments on commission-based 
salary. [The Beneficiary] fits into this salary type. 
[The Beneficiary] will be paid semimonthly on the 1st of the month and the 15th of the 
month for the periods that have ended on the 27th of the month and 12th of the month. 
[The Petitioner] will make commission payments to [the Beneficiary] based on repair 
labor cost of musical instruments that she repaired. 
The band instrument repair industry, generally, repair technician's annual salary 1s 
between 35k to 60k. Very top of our filed [sic] would earn 80k. 
As a high-end repair technician, most days we work on several instruments per day. Other 
days, we focus on overhauling one instrument for three-full days. 
Some of our service items have fixed price such as cleaning for brass instruments but 
some of the items such as Dent Work, Valve Work, or Key Repair are estimate based on 
severity on the damage and other factors hence the labor cost varies case by case. 
8 
In addition, the Petitioner provided several "Example Day[ s ]" to illustrate how the Beneficiary would 
earn 50% commission for repair work. Further, the Petitioner submitted a copy of the Beneficiary's 2019 
IRS Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, reflecting that the Beneficiary earned $26,346 from the 
Petitioner. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner claimed the Beneficiary "will command a high salary or 
other substantial remuneration." In addition, the Petitioner asserted: 
The job we have offered [the Beneficiary] at [the Petitioner] that is the subject of of [sic] 
the original O-lB petition (and which she will start immediately after her O-lB visa is 
obtained and all appropriate USCIS approvals have been obtained), is a BIR technician 
position compensated fully on a commission in which she is expected to earn an average 
of at least $29.80 per hour, which equals an annualized full-time amount of at least 
$62,000 per year. 
It is the standard in our industry of BIR that, once a BIR technician employed in a BIR 
shop (i.e., not the owner of the shop) has achieved a certain level of"productivity," (which 
[the Beneficiary] has clearly achieved), they are paid fully on a commission basis. Those 
of us in the BIR industry use the term "commission" to mean that a BIR technician's 
compensation will be equal to a percentage of the total labor charge we bill to the customer 
for the repairs that BIR technician makes to the customer's instrument. We have found 
in our industry that this incentive method of pay a BIR technician results in the highest 
productivity for the shop and the BIR technician, resulting in higher revenue for the shop 
and higher pay for the BIR technician. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted a "Copy of page in Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] website" 
purportedly reflecting the occupational employment and wages for musical instrument repairers and 
tuners. The evidence appears to have copied the material from BLS' website into the Petitioner's self­
compiled document. The copy, however, does not contain the URL address or other indicators 
establishing the origin and true nature of the material. Because it did not submit the actual screenshots 
from BLS' website, the self-compiled and copied information has diminished probative value. 5 
Notwithstanding the above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6) requires "[e]vidence that 
the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other substantial 
remuneration for services in relation to others in the field, as evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence." Here, the Petitioner claimed the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion based on the 
earnings that she will command from the Petitioner. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that it will 
fully compensate the Beneficiary based on 50% of the labor, which will be about $62,000 per year. 
As indicated, this regulatory criterion requires a petitioner to establish that a beneficiary will command 
a high salary or other substantial remuneration for services "as evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence." The record, however, does not reflect that the Petitioner submitted any contracts with the 
5 We note here that the previously discussed testimonials contain a prepared question asking whether $62,000 is a high 
salary for BIR technicians in which they indicated "Yes." 
9 
Beneficiary, setting forth any salary or compensation conditions. Furthermore, the Petitioner provided 
an unsigned "Payment Terms (Salary for Beneficiary)" document and made unsupported assertions 
regarding the Beneficiary's compensation and salary expectations, which do not constitute "other reliable 
evidence." In this case, the Petitioner has not shown that it will compensate the Beneficiary based on 
50% labor, "as evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence" consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide any corroborating evidence to support its assertions. The 
Petitioner indicated that "[i]t is the standard in our industry of BIR that, once a BIR technician employed 
in a BIR shop ... has achieved a certain level of 'productivity,' ... they are paid fully on a commission 
basis." However, the Petitioner did not point to evidence that affirms its claims. Furthermore, the 
regulation requires "other substantial remuneration for services." The Petitioner did not show how the 
Beneficiary will be commanding other substantial remuneration for services if the industry standard is 
50% of labor and the Petitioner is offering compensation at 50% of labor. In addition, the Petitioner did 
not present any payroll, tax, financial, or other business records demonstrating its history of compensating 
its productive BIR technicians at 50% oflabor. Further, the Petitioner did not establish that based on BIR 
requests or sales receipts, the Beneficiary has the potential to earn $62,000, or that the Petitioner has the 
ability to compensate the Beneficiary at 50% of labor. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary will command a high 
salary or other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in the field, as evidenced by 
contracts or other reliable evidence. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary satisfies 
this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets any of the claimed categories of evidence. 
Therefore, we need not provide a totality determination to establish whether the Beneficiary has 
sustained national or international acclaim, has received a high level of achievement, and has been 
recognized as being prominent in her field of endeavor. See section 10l(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and (iv).6 Accordingly, we reserve this issue. 7 Consequently, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 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. 
6 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, M.4(D), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
7 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7. (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
10