The Petitioner, a CEO and entrepreneur, seeks second preference immigrant classification as 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not qualify for the underlying classification. The Director additionally determined that the proposed endeavor lacked national importance and that the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Accordingly, the Directordeterminedthatthe Petitioner had not established eligibility for a national interest waiver.
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner submits additional evidence and reasserts his eligibility, arguing that the Director did not properly weigh and consider the evidence.
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.
Legalframework
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 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 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 at8 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).
I
2006. ThePetitionerdidnotsubmithisdiplomaortranscript.
The Director noted in a request for evidence (RFE) that in order to qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that the Petitioner needed to submit an accompanying academic evaluation toestablishtheU.S.equivalencyofhisforeigndegree. TheRFEfurthernotifiedthePetitionerthatthe evidence did not establish five years of progressive, post-baccelaureate employment experience, or how his education related to the proposed endeavor, which had been described as "CEO" and "business/housing developer" on the Form I -140.
In his RFE response, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to address these deficiences. In her decision denying the petition, the Director noted that the employment letters provided in the RFE response did not include the Petitioner's specific employment dates, nor did the Petitioner submit his complete academic record or a foreign academic equivalency evaluation.
On appeal, the Petitioner still has not provided his complete academic record but provides an academic equivalency evaluation which states that the Petitioner has earned a Nigerian Bachelor's o f Law degree, and that it is equivalent to a U.S. juris doctor degree. Upon review of the academic equivalency evaluation, we note that the evaluator considered transcripts and grades issued by the Registrar of IUniversityonJune9,2018. However,therecordcontainsnotranscript,grades,ordiploma, and the only reference we have for these documents comes from the information listed in the evaluation. Therefore, the evaluation is based upon documentation not in the record and not available for our independent inspection and verification. Moreover, although the evaluation lists the Petitioner's courses, grades, and years of attendance, it does not contain an adequate explanation o f how the Petitioner's five-In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). a national interest wa iverto bed iscretionary in nature).
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,asmatterofdiscretion,2grantanationalinterestwaiverifthepetitionerdemonstrates: (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 ajob offer and thus of a labor certification. 3
Analysis
A Evidentiary Criteria for Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree The Director determined that the Petitioner did not qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanceddegree. Inhisinitialfiling,thePetitionersubmittedanotificationfromhisNigerianschool, I IUniversity, which stated that he had fulfilled all the school's requirements, passed the requlred examinations, and was approved to be awarded a Bachelor of Laws degree in effect from November See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir.2019)(fincling USCIS' decision to grant or deny See Dhanasar, 261 &N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. p. 4 year degree is the equivalent of a U.S. juris doctor degree, which typically requires a four-year bachelor's degreeinadditiontoathree-yearlawdegree. Wemay,inourdiscretion,useanevaluationofaperson'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. Here, the evaluator utilized documents and made assertions notadequatelysupported with evidence. Therefore, the evaluation has little probative value in this matter.
The evidence submitted on appeal contains new employer letters, one o f which is from the Petitioner's company] I The letter states that the Petitioner is a founder of the company and has been fully employed since March 2012 as a board member. This letter does not establish that the Petitioner's experience has been progressive, as it contains little discussion of the Petitioner's duties and experience.Five years of progressive experience not documented In fact, the letter defers to the Petitioner to explain what his experience involves. Although the Petitioner claimed that his company has a human resources division, the letter is not issued by this division, but rather it is from another board memberwho, based upon a shared last name, appears to be a relative of the Petitioner.
The appeal also contains two letters from .___~----~--' one of which states that the Petitioner worked from November 2007 to December 2011 "in the capacity oflnvestment advisor and grew to become the Sales Manager." Another letter dated in 2007, offers the Petitioner employment as a "Sales Managers/Investment Advisor." From these two letters, it is not clear how the Petitioner's work experience was progressive or how the Petitioner "grew to" a new position as Sales Manager when he had already been offered the position of Sales Managers/Investment Advisor in 2007. The Petitioner also stated on appeal that he "started with the position of Sales Managers/Investment We question the credibility of these letters and at a minimum conclude that they lack probative value in establishing the Petitioner's work experience. Overall, these credibility concerns lead usto question whether the Petitioner attempted to cure deficiencies in the record by creating evidence that did not exist at the time of filing his petition. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.Inconsistencies in the record Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id.
In his RFE response, the Petitioner described his area of exceptional ability as business development andentrepreneurship. Onappeal,thePetitionerexplainsthathis"backgroundintheLawofcontract'' 4 With his initial filing, the Petitioner stated that healsoworked as propertyconsultantand as one of the directors of□ I bhoweverneitheroftheseclaimsissubstantiatedintherecord. Bycontrast,theinitialletterfrom ~ - - - - ~ tatedthat the Petitionerworkedasa real estate broker. The inconsistent claims combined with a lack of specific information diminish thecred ibility of these letters.
It shou Id be noted that the letter dated in 2007 appears to be of the same quality, age, and nature as the letter issued in 2020, neitherofwhich bears an original signature. The ink, paper, and logo suggest thatthe 2007 letter may have actually been written and printed in 2020. Bath letters bearthespellingofthestreetnamel Iwhich appears in other parts oftherecordasl I'andi I'Finally,aninternetsearchrevealsadifferentaddressforthiscompanythan the one listed on these letters.
Advisor," which does not suggest any progressive work experience. do not sufficiently describe the duties, it cannot be concluded that if the two positions are different, that the movement was progressive, as opposed to lateral, in nature.
Moreover, because the letters p. 5 guides him in business and property law, which informs his work in real estate and investments. Here, the Petitioner offers an insufficient connection between his degree and the proposed endeavor. While we do not have the Petitioner's academic record, we note the equi valency evaluation Iists the Petitioner as having taken several contracts courses but no classes in business, property/real estate, corporate, or investment law.No interest from users, customers or investors The Petitioner offers little other evidence or explanation to establish a connection between his education and his claimed expertise in business development and entrepreneurship.
Due to the evidentiary deficiencies in his academic degree and work experience, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is a member of the professions with an advanced degree.
B. EvidentiaryCriteriaforExceptionalAbility
The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability. As discussed below, a review of the record indicates that the Petitioner does not meet at least three of the relevant evidentiary 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) We noted above that the Petitioner has not submitted his academic record, nor has he sufficiently connected the claimed academic degree of a Bachelor's of Law to the claimed area of exceptional ability. 6 Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner 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) While the progressive nature of the Petitioner's work with his own companyJ Ihas not been established, sufficient documentation in the record does establish that he has been employed in business andentrepreneurshipwithl lsince2012. ThePetitionerclaimedthatevensincelivingintheUnited States as of April 2018, he still works fifty hours a week tori l We also acknowledge a letter of recommendation from,___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,, which states that thePetitionerhasbeenworkingasafranchiseesince2009. Thisletter,however,conflictswiththe franchise purchase documents that were not signed until 2016, and which state that they are effective from 2010. The Petitioner claims to work fifty hours per week tori Iand has described himself as a manager. However, neither the letter from a fellow franchisee nor the Petitioner's self-reported claims are sufficient to serve as evidence from the Petitioner's current or former employer(s), nor do these claims establish the Petitioner's full-time experience in the occupation. Moreover, as explained previously, the letters issued b~ Idescribe On appeal, the Petitioner's attorney states that the Petitioner holds the equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate degree in architecture and also refers to the Petitioner by using the feminine pronoun "she." Similarly, the attorney's initial letter references~ las the Petitioner, which is a name not found elsewhere in the record. Therefore, we questbn whetherthesedocuments were actually prepared for another petitioner. p. 6 the Petitioner's w01k in an inconsistent and insufficiently detailed manner, which reduces their probative value, while their appearance and content raise questions as to their credibility.
Although the Petitioner has established some work experience in the area of business and entrepreneurship, the evidence is insufficient to establish ten years of full-time experience at the time of filing. Accordingly,thePetitionerhasnotsatisfiedthiscriterion.
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 a certificate signed in 2013 that states he was elected in 2012 as an "Associate"memberoftheNigerianInstitutionofEstateSurveyorsandValuers.7 Initially,wenote that the Director discussed this evidence under the criterion pertaining to licensure, although it is unclear whether the document represents a membership or a license. Nevertheless, the Director determined that the evidence did not establish that a license was required to practice in the occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner submitted documentation concerning the various ways one can obtain a membership to the Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers. After examining the membership requirements, we question how the Petitioner meets any of them. For instance, the Petitioner does not possess a bachelor of science degree certificate in real estate, which is a basic requirementofgraduateswhoseekmembership. Inanycase,noneofthedocumentationestablishes why such a membership (or license) would be required to practice the occupation. Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied 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) We acknowledge thel Ipay slips evidencing income from Nigeria, which the Director found insufficient to satisfy this criterion. 8 On appeal, the Petitioner submitted a foreign tax statement for years 2016-2018, which indicates income in Nigerian Naira of 1,250,000 for 2018; 875,000 for 2017; and 450,000 for 2016. Taken together, we observe inaccuracies that diminish the credibility of these documents. Forinstance,thepayslipincomeforaone-monthpayperiodin2018exceedsthetotal income reported on the tax statement for the year 2018. The tax document was also issued after the filing of the petition and therefore does not establish eligibility at the time of filing.Not eligible at the time of filing
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the Petitioner "has commanded a salary or remuneration for services that is indicative of his or her claimed exceptional ability relative to others working in the field." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2). It appears logical and appropriate to consider the Petitioner's income based on the wage statistics or comparable evidence in the foreign country in which it is earned, rather than by converting the salary to U.S. dollars and then viewing whether that salary would be considered high in the United States. Accordingly, even if the Petitioner's evidence was credible, we would still find that he had not provided evidence to establish how his compensation compares to other CEOs working in real estate, oil, and construction in the howeverth is relates to the business ratherthan the Petitioner himself.
The majority of the pay slips were dated after the Petitioner was already living in the United States. The Petitioner did not submit U.S. tax or bank documents to substantiate the income claimed on these pay slips.
We acknowledge the Petitioner's statements on appeal t h a t c = J is registered and licensed to operate as a business, p. 7 same geographical area. For the foregoing reasons, the evidence does not establish whether this income demonstrates exceptional ability. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion.
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) The Petitioner submitted documentation thatl Ia n d ~ - - - - - - - - ~ are business entity members of associations, however the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence of his own personal membership in professional associations. We acknowledge the I !Lion's Club membership certificate, however, as the Director noted, there is no evidence of how this association relates to the area of business and entrepreneurship, nor does the certificate contain a date of issuance. Returning to the Petitioner's claims of membership as an "Associate" in the Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers, it remains unclear whether the Petitioner retained his 2012 membership up through the filing of the petition and if so, how he has maintained such a membership given that he doesnotappeartomeetthemembershiprequirements. Accordingly,theevidencedoesnotestablish that the Petitioner satisfied th is 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) As the Director stated, the evidence does not articulate specific contributions or achievements attributable to the Petitioner, rather than attributable to his business] IThe Petitioner has not substantiated his initial claims that he or his company developed! Ibuilding technology, nor has he submitted evidencethatshowsachievementorsignificantcontributionstothefield. Thearticlewrittenconcerning the Petitioner's philanthropic work for a boys' grammar school concerns a local award and offers no indication that the Petitioner has achieved recognition in his field by the business industry as awhole. Likewise, the letter of appreciation from the girls school also does not indicate the Petitioner has garnered recognition for a larger achievement or contribution to the industry.
The letters of recommendation that pertain to the Petitioner, as opposed to his business, do not provide specificachievementsorcontributionswhichthePetitionermadetothefieldoverall.Support letters generic or unsupported Instead,theylargely praise his character, reference positive qualities he has as an employee, or mention achievements he has had within the particular company. 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 presumptiveevidenceofeligibility. USCISmayevaluatethecontentofthoseletterssoastodetermine 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 expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion.
Summary
The record does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The Petitioner has not established his eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. As previously outlined, the p. 8 Petitioner must show that he is either an advanced degree professional or possesses exceptional ability beforewereachthequestionofthenationalinterestwaiver. Theevidencedoesnotestablishthatthe Petitioner meets the regulatory criteria for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or that he is an individual of exceptional ability.
C. 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 otheiwise qualify for classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. However, because the Director made additional eligibility findings and the Petitioner alleges error in the Director's decision, we will provide additional analysis using the Dhanasar framework.9 To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit but that the evidence was insufficient to establish that it meets the national importance requirement.1° The proposed endeavor involves building low cost fireproof rural housing using locally-sourced materials, as well as real estate and housing development sales. The Petitioner has pledged his endeavor will create jobs, but he has providednoestimatesastohowmany,whattypes,orinwhatgeographicalareas. Heclaimshewillbe able to offer affordable housing to lower income individuals, which would address the shortage of affordable housing, but he has not stated how much affordable housing he will create or what the broader impact will be.No broader implications shown The Petitioner intends to invest in small businesses and obtain his building materials locally, yet he has not estimated how much revenue his proposed endeavor will create to establish how much can be invested, nor has he shown how the purchasing of local building materials will have a broadernational impact. The Petitioner also espouses the fireproof virtues of his building materials, his structural designs, and his method of construction, however he does not explain how these techniques are different from home construction techniques currently being used in the United States. Although the Petitioner claims to have conducted feasibility studies and research on the endeavor, he has not provided further details or copies of the studies and research. The Petitioner referenced beginning the proposed endeavor in California, Texas and Maryland, but he has not identified where specifically, nor how focusingontheseareastranslatestoanendeavorthatisnationalinscope. Fortheforegoingreasons,the evidence is insufficient and lacks the requisite detail necessary to support a finding that the endeavor has national importance.
D. WhetherthePetitionerisWellPositionedtoAdvancetheProposedEndeavor
ThesecondprongshiftsthefocusfromtheproposedendeavortothePetitioner. AlthoughthePetitioner claims he will create jobs by hiring locally and will invest in small businesses, as well as create affordable housing in California, Texas, and Maryland, he provides few specific details on how he has positioned Because the identified reasons ford ismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the arguments regarding the e n d e a v o r ' s s u b s t a n t i a l m e r i t a s p e c t o f p r o n g o n e o f t h e Dhanasar framework, as well as prong three. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to makefinding, on issues the decision ofwhich is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 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).
While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. p. 9 himself for this to occur. He has not, for example, identified the specifical rural communities where building and real estate development will occur. There is little indication that potential low-income rural customers,oranycustomers,haveinterestintheproposedendeavor. Heclaimshisproposedendeavor will offer fireproof housing at a low cost, but he has not identified how his positioning, as compared with those of other developers already in the market, will enable him to obtain lower cost building materials and housing. The Petitioner has not established that his foreign experience and education have any bearingorsignificanceintheU.S.housingandrealestatemarkets. Hehasnotsubmittedevidencethat he has a U.S. real estate license, or has employed others with U.S. licenses, such as structural engineers and builders. The record contains little indication that he has building permits, contracts with suppliers, or intellectual property rights to the fireproof strategies he identifies. If it is the Petitioner's intention to usel Ito advance the proposed endeavor, which is unclear from the record, he has not submitted evidence thatl Iis a registered business in the United States or possesses the appropriate U.S. federal orstatepermissionstoengageintheproposedendeavor. Moreover,assuggested,b..Y...b.i.s..esumeandthe Form ETA 9089 included in the record, the Petitioner works fifty hours a week f m L _ j a n d fifty hours a week as anl I. manager. As such, it is unclear how much time, if any, he could devote to the proposed endeavor.
We note thatthe Petitioner intends to fundtheendeavorthrough financing purportedly obtained in Nigeria through the Petitioner's companyJ 11 Upon review of the Form 1-140, we note thatl Iis not listed as the petitioning organization. It is unclear how any financing secured from a bank loan in Nigeria could be disbursed to the Petitioner for use in the United States. The Petitioner referenced difficulty in obtaining the disbursement of funds from a previous loan application and there is little indication that current funds could or would be disbursed for the Petitioner's use in the United States, as opposed to I l'suseforprojectslocatedinNigeria. NorhasthePetitionersubmittedcredibleevidencethathe hassufficientpersonalfundstoadvancetheproposedendeavor. Weconcludethatanyrevenuestreams appear speculative in nature. The record, as currently constituted, contains few concrete avenues for financing the proposed endeavor.
For the foregoing reasons, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. E. NationalInterestWaiver
Becausethedocumentationintherecorddoesnotestablish: (1)thatthePetitionermeetstherequirements of the underlying classification; (2) the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the f irstprong of the Dhanasar precedent decision; or (3) that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under the second prong, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose.
The Director noted that the loan documents provided by the Petitioner were issued afterthe petition filing and therefore werenotsufficienttoestablishfinancingatthetimeoffiling. Onappeal,thePetitionerexplainsthattheoriginalloan documentsweresubmittedpriortothepetitionfilingbutweresubsequentlycancelled. Eveniftrue,thisstillwouldnot establish that the Petitioner had secured any loan funding at the time o f f iling.
Ill. CONCLUSION
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act In addition, the evidence has not shown that the proposed endeavor is of national importance or that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance it. As such, he has not established that awaiver of the job offer and labor certification would be in the national interest of the United States. 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.