A self-petitioning carpet weaver 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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner qualified for classification as an individual of exceptional ability, he had not established that his proposed endeavor is of national interest, that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, 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 erred in the decision.
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.
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, or business, 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 interestwaiver.... [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) ofthe 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 schoo Is, 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 aforeign 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).
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interesi" 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, USCIS may, as matter of discretion ,2 grant a national interestwaiverifthepetitionerdemonstrates: (1)thattheforeignnational'sproposedendeavorhas 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 ajob offer and thus of a labor certification. 3
Analysis
ThePetitionerdoesnotassertthatheisamemberoftheprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree. Based on the Petitioner's initial filing, the Director determined that the Petitioner qualified as an individual with exceptional ability. Upon our de nova review, we question the evidence concerning the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying classification as an individual of exceptional ability. We conclude that the evidence does not in fact support eligibility for the underlying classification and therefore withdraw 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) The Petitioner provided an ETA 750 Part B which stated that in 1992, he earned an associate's degree in electromechanics from a professional technical college in Uzbekistan. The Petitioner also stated on the form that he attended! Iuniversity in Uzbekistan from 1992 to 1997 and received a diploma in the art of carpet making. In his personal statement, he claimed to have attended theI I ~ - - - - - ~ b u t he did not provide information on where this college is, when he attended, what hestudied,orwhetherhecompletedanacademicprogram. ThePetitionerdidnotprovideanofficial academic record evidencing study at any of the institutions he claimed to have attended. The record does not show he 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. 5 Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion.
Evidence in the form of letter(s)from current or former employer(s) showing that the 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) 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).
See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir. 20 l 9)(fincling USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest wa iverto bed iscretionary in nature). classification as an individual of exceptional ability. However, the Director did not provide any analysis to explain that finding. Moreover,weobservetheDirectordidnotundertakeafinalmeritsanalysissubsequenttodeterminingthatthe Petitioner satisfied at least three of the six criteria. the Director's statements concluding otherwise.
See Dhanasar, 261 &N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on thesethreeprongs.
The Director's request for evidence (RFE) contains the determination that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying The record contains a certificate la beled "diploma," however this document was issued by a crafts fair organization and is not an official academic record.
On the ETA 750 Part B and within other biographical documentation contained in the record, the Petitioner claimed to have worked as a carpet weaver atl Iinl IUzbekistan from July 2001toApril2016andthathehasbeenself-employedsince2017. ThePetitionerdidnotprovideany letters from current or former employers evidencing that he has at least ten years of full-time experience in his occupation. The record, as it currently stands, is not sufficient to satisfy this 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) The Petitioner did not submit evidence indicating that a license is required to practice the profession or occupation of carpet weaving. We acknowledge a document issued by the "Republic of Uzbekistan association of master craftsmen and folk artists" (formatting errors in original) which granted the PetitioneralicensevalidfromJune2015toJune2016. However,inexaminingtherecordasawholeand placing this document in context, it appears that although the document was translated as a "license," it is actually a type of membership registration with the,___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, This conclusion is supported by letters from the,___ _ _ _ _ _ ___,welcoming the Petitioner as a member, along with letters from other artists who recommended the Petitioner for membership, and counsel's index label of thedocumentasevidenceofmembership. Assuch,weconcludethatalthoughtranslatedasa"license," suchdocumentationisactuallyevidenceofmembershipinacraftassociation. Accordingly,theevidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied th is 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) As stated, the record contains evidence of the Petitioner's membershif id Ifrom June 2015 to June 2016. 6 In addition, the record contains a 2018 letter from the'_ lot Folk Artists, Craftsmen and Artists of the Republic of Uzbekistan" in which the CEO stated that the Petitioner was accepted as a member in 2004 and that he is a current and full member of the association. The Petitioner also submitted copies of letters from other artistswho recommended him for membership based upon his achievements and skill irl lartisanal carpet weaving. Accordingly, the evidence of record is sufficient to establish that the Petitioner meets th is criterion.Not eligible at 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 in, and attendance at, various craft fairs andfolkartistexhibitions. Thesecertificatesdonotestablishachievementorcontributioninthefield of carpet weaving as much as they establish participation in craft fairs and a willingness to display and sell his crafts. There is little evidence that the Petitioner had to qualify to participate in these events, nor is there sufficient evidence to establish that these craft fairs and exhibitions are exclusive such that acceptance into them would signify a level of achievement or contribution in the field. While we acknowledgeone2017letterfromthe~-----------~ whichstatedthatthe Petitioner was one of 162 master artists selected to participate from among 640 applicants, this does not establish that the Petitioner has achieved recognition for achievements and significant contributionsinthefieldofcarpetweaving. WedonotknowwhyorhowthePetitionerwasselected to participate in thel Iexhibition. For instance, the Petitioner could have been selected to participate in the event because! Iwanted to feature avariety of craft types and artists from diverse countriesoforigin. Alternatively,hecouldhavebeenselectedmerelybecausetheselectingofficial likedhiswork. ItisnotapparentfromthecurrentrecordthatthePetitioner'sparticipationinanyof the craft fairs and art exhibitions was due to any contribution or achievement in the field.
Similarly, although thd Iclaims that membership in its organization is "open only to highly skilled masters who are among the few on top of their fields," and thatl I "requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts in the respective field o f folk art," these claims have not been substantiated in the record, nor have the Petitioner's achievements been adequately documented. Thel I Idid not sufficiently describe the Petitioner's specific achievements or contributions that enabled him to qualify for membership such that we may determine that he has received recognition in his field, nor did the Petitioner supplement the record with sufficient evidence of how he was selected in comparison to other carpet weavers.
In his RFE response, the Petitioner submitted an award "certificate" but offered little information on what the certificate meantorwhyhe received it. We acknowledge thatthe certificate was established by decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, but this does not explain whether such an award is evidenceofcontributionsorachievementsinfieldofcarpetweaving. NeitherthePetitionernortheaward itself identifies any specific details about what made the Petitioner's work award-worthy. Finally, the Petitioner presented little evidence showing thatth is award is recognized beyond the presenting institution or indicative of influence on the field as awhole.
Turning to the letters submitted by other artists and art critics, we note that although many authors offer general praise concerning the Petitioner's creativity, dedication, and unique abilities, none of their letters persuasively establish that the Petitioner received recognition for achievements or significantly contributed to the field.Support letters generic or unsupported For instance, some authors claimed that the Petitioner's contributions and achievement in the field of carpet weaving arose from his creative rethinking, modificationstotheart, revivaloftraditionaltechniques,andhisstudyofancientmasters'works. However, it is not apparent how studying an art form is an achievement or contribution to the industry, nor can we ascertain what specific creative rethinking the Petitioner offered or why reviving I p. 6 techniques that were already previously developed would constitute an achievement or contribution to the field. While some of the authors ex,lained that the Petitioner usd Ialong with I Jthemes in his carpet weaving, this does not evidence a modification of the field or establish that other carpet weavers do not also perform this type of work.Claims not backed by documents The simple recreation of techniques and revival of the use of materials previously used in thel I .___ _ _ _ _ ____.does not necessarily establish that the Petitioner's methods and techniques are differentfromother! Iartisanalcarpetweavers. Theauthorshavenotexplainedwhyreviving old methods constitutes challenging work such that it is significant to the field, and it is not apparent what is unique about the Petitioner's work relative to the work of other artisanal carpet weavers. Further, while several art scholars offer biographical information about the Petitioner and a history of the carpet weaving art form, none of the art scholars indicate that the Petitioner has gained recognition forachievementsandsignificantcontributionsinthefield. Moreover,theartscholarshavenotsigned or dated their letters, which diminishes the credibility of the letters.
Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756,Inc. v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C.1990)(holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters so as to determine whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expe1i opinion testimony does not purp01i to be evidence as to "fact").
In addition, many of the authors use regulatory language setting forth eligibility criteria for individuals of extraordinary ability, which involves a different analysis from that which is used for individuals of exceptional ability,7 and which is not the classification under which this petition was filed. 8 For instance, many of the authors write that the Petitioner has risen to the very top of his field, that his achievements have been judged by nationally and internationally recognized experts, and that material has been published about the Petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media.Exceptional ability not established The letters do not appear to contain the independent opinions of the authors, but instead recite thecriteriaforanotherimmigrantclassification. Inaddition,manyoftheauthorsuseidenticalphrases, whichfurthersupportsaconclusionthattheletterswerenotindependentlywritten. Infact,counsel's statements in support of the Petitioner appear to mirror language in many of the letters and it is not apparent whether counsel's statements were based on the letters or whether the authors of the letters used language offered to them by counsel. We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter ofCaron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Id. Here, the letters are of diminished probative value due to insufficient explanations and analysis to support the authors' conclusions, the unsupported recitation of regulations concerning a different immigrant classification, and the similarity of language used by unrelated authors.
I
The Petitioner also submitted evidence of publications written about him and the field of carpet weaving. The record contains an article written by the Petitioner about himself and which appears akin to a classified advertisement in a newspaper. As a classified advertisement is self-produced recognition, it does not evidence actual recognition for achievement or contributions in the field. We also examined the article appearing in th~ !newspaper. While it contains information about the Petitioner and his carpet weaving, we have insufficient information with which to conclude that this article represents evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to theindustryofcarpetweaving. Thenewspaperthatpublishedthearticleclaimstoprint500copiesof its newspaper weekly and that an electronic version of the newspaper is available, but it is not apparent that the Petitioner is recognized for achievements or contributions in his industry as a result of this publication.
We also acknowledge the Petitioner's written material on the history and craftsmanship of ancient Icarpets. Although the works have been published, the record does not contain sufficient information to conclude that anyone has read the Petitioner's publications or that these written works constitute achievements or contributions in the field. As noted by the Director, the record does not containevidenceofthesignificanceorimportanceofthesepublications. Althoughtherecordcontains a document entitled "review,"whichthePetitionercharacterized as areview of his book, the document appears to be nothing more than a letter from the publishing company who published the Petitioner's book. In the letter, the publishing company's CEO offered an overview ofthe book and his opinion that it constitutes a significant event in the field of carpet weaving, in addition to speculating that the bookwillfavorthedevelopmentoftheindustry. However,theauthorhasnotprovidedasufficient basis for how he arrived at these conclusions, nor has the Petitioner provided evidence to suggest that the CEO of a publishing company is knowledgeable or qualified to opine on matters concerning the carpet weaving industry. Finally, even if the CEO's opinions are accurate, a letter from a publisher would still be insufficient evidence for us to conclude that the Petitioner has received recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry.
For all these reasons, the evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. Summary
The record does not support a finding that the Petitioner met at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 9 Therefore, the Petitioner has not established eligibility as an individual of exceptional abi Iity 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 and he has not asserted that he is an advanced degree professional. Accordingly, the issue of the national interest eligibility is still required perthetwo-partadjudication framework established in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Inthefinalmeritsanalysis,thequalityoftheevidencemustbeevaluated. Here,afinalmeritsanalysisisnotrequired because the Petitioner has not established that he has met at leastthree of the six criteria.
When a petitioner has satisfied at least three of the six criteria, a final merits determination concerning the Petitioner's p. 8 waiver is moot.1° The waiver is availableonlyto foreignworkerswhootherwisequalifyfor classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. Because the documentation in the record does not establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, further analysis of eligibility under the framework outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose.
Ill. CONCLUSION
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, the Petitionerhasnotestablishedeligibilityfortheimmigrationbenefitsought. Section291oftheAct, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 l&N Dec.127, 128 (BIA 2013).
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
Because the identified reasons ford ismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the arguments regarding eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision ofwhich 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 alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).