The Petitioner, a limited liability company focused on retail, import/export, and wholesale agricultural products, seeks second preference immigrant classification for the Beneficiary, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Beneficiary qualified for classification as an individual of exceptional ability, the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary 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.
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner mentions additional reasons why it believes the Beneficiary qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability, is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and that it would be beneficial to the U.S. to waive the requirements for a job offer and labor certification.
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 p. 2 classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that awaiver 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 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 p. 3 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 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
Initially, it bears mentioning that the Petitioner, a limited liability company, has only one employee, who is the Beneficiary. As such, the Beneficiary has initiated this petition as the owner of her own company. Though the Director determined the Beneficiary to be an individual of exceptional ability, the Petitioner alleges the Director erred in its analysis concerning two of the six criteria within the exceptional ability determination. Specifically, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary had a license and professional memberships which the Director did not consider. In our de nova review of the exceptional ability determination as a whole, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is an individual of exceptional ability.
A Evidentiary Criteria for Exceptional AbilityExceptional ability not established
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) While the Petitionersubmitted aforeign bachelor's degree certificate from the Department of Agricultural Science atl !university, it is unclear what major, concentration, or field of study the Beneficiary engaged in to obtain this degree. The translation of the degree itself contains no indication ofamajor. TheBeneficiary'sresumeindicatesthatthebachelor'sdegreeisinagriculturalsciences,while a letter of reference within the record states the Beneficiary's bachelor's degree is in agronomy.
The record also contains a certificate for a foreign master's degree in Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics. The Beneficiary's resume describes this as a master's degree in Probability 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).
See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir.2019)(fincling USCIS' decision to grant or deny See Dhanasa.r, 261 &N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on thesethreeprongs.
Statistics and Finance of Commercial Math. According to the support letter submitted in the initial filing, the Beneficiary holds amaster's degree in "probability statistics and Finance of Commercial." Similar to the bachelor' sdegree, the varying degreetitles for the Beneficiary' smaster' sdegreemake it unclear what degree the Beneficiary actually holds.
We note that the Beneficiary herself has provided English translations for these documents, but has not complied with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), which requires, in pertinent part, that the translator certify that the translation is complete and accurate, and that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. The Beneficiary's resume states that her level of English is "intermediate," which does not suggest full competency to translate. 4 Therecordcontainsnoacademicequivalencyevaluationforeitherdegree. Astheprecisedegreesthe Benet iciary ho Ids remains unclear and the translations do not comply with the regulation, the record does notcrediblyestablishtheBeneficiary'sacademicrecord. Ascertainingtheprecisedegree(s)heldbythe Benet iciary is necessary to establish the claimed area of exceptional ability, if any. 5 Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets th is regulatory 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 the initial f iIing, the Petitioner submitted five letters of reference from the following individuals: 1. I IanengineerwhodoesnotstatehowheknowstheBeneficiary;
2. I Ian academic researcher who cooperated with the Beneficiary in an unknown
capacitywhilethe Beneficiarywas self-employed;
3. I , Ian Apple engineer who cooperated with the Beneficiary in an undefined capacity 4. I 5.1 relating to wholesale and retail business and during a time in which the Beneficiary was self- employed; ~n Apple engineer who cooperated with the Beneficiary in an unknown capacity and Iwhose leadership the Beneficiary worked unde._rf_ro_m_l-98-5--1-9_9_2_ _ _ _ ____. studiedwithher; andSupport letters generic or unsupported
Ia senior statistician and former General Director of
Upon examining this evidence, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) which notified the Beneficiary that "no evidence has been submitted relating to this criterion" and that the letters appeared tobefromcurrentorformercolleagues,asopposedtocurrentorformeremployers. InitsRFEresponse, thePetitionersubmittedthesamelettersagain. Nevertheless,theDirectorultimatelydeterminedthatthe Benet iciary had satisfied th is criterion.Inconsistencies in the record
We note other irregularities and inconsistencies in the record concerning the Beneficiary's translations of other documents. Thisunderminesthecredibilityofthetranslationsasawhole. business.
The Petitioner's initial support letter states thatthe Beneficiary has exceptional ability in the field economic analysis and According to government records. she also appears to be the Beneficiary's daughter.
However, in examining these letters on appeal, we observe that none of the letters establishes that the Beneficiary's experience was full-time. Further, only the authorl Iappears to know the Benet iciary in an employer-related capacity, as that author claimed that the Beneficiary worked "under my leadership" from 1985-1992. The author does not clearly identify the leadership position held during the time in which the Beneficiary worked under it, nor can we ascertain whether such leadership signifies thattheauthorwastheBeneficiary'semployerduringthattime. Evenifweconsidertheauthortobea former employer, the time in which the author could conceivably be construed as the Beneficiaty's employerwouIdbesevenyearsonly,whichfallsshortofthecriterion'srequirementoftenyears. The remainder of the letter lists the Beneficiaty 's work history but does not establish the author's familiarity with the Beneficiary as her current or former employer. Considering the letters individually and collectively, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that it meets this regulatory 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 Director determined that no evidence had been submitted relating to this criterion. O n ~ I , the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's previous license to operate a retail souvenir shop i n l _ _ J Italy satisfies this requirement and that although the title o f the document does not say "license," the document effectively operated as the Beneficiary's business license. While the document may be a license to own and operate a retail shop and issued by the Chamber o f Commerce irl Iit is not a professional license thatpermitsentryintoaparticularprofessionoroccupation. Simplycallingsomethingalicensedoesnot satisfytherequirementsofthiscriterion. Bywayofexample,adriver'slicenseiscalleda"license,"but would not satisfy this criterion. Similarly, the Beneficiaiy's license registering her LLC in Nevada is called a "business license," but it is not a professional Iicense satisfying th is criterion.
The differences between a license to operate a shop and a professional license for the purposes of exceptional ability are numerous. Primarily, the actions required by the Beneficiary to obtain the license to operate a retail souvenir shop appear to be based on mere registration, attestation, and payment of a fee to the issuing authority, whereas a license to practice a profession normally entails a level of education, expertise,ortheattainmentofaparticularprofessionalcompetencebenchmark. Theinformationinthe record does not indicate that the Beneficiary had to comply with a certain level of professional competenceinordertobeissuedalicensetooperateherretailshop. Rather,thelicensureappearstohave been perfunctory and issued upon proper application and fee. With or without a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent, an individual could apply for and be issued a business license to operate a retail shop. Additionally, the license to operate the retail shop ends when the retail shop closes, as indicated in the record, which differentiates it from a professional license that does not necessarily terminatesimplybecausetheholderoftheli~hangesjobsorbusinessesclose. Finally,thelicense to operate a retail shop inl lis limited tol__Jalone and it does not imply that the Beneficiary may usethelicensebeyondtheconfinesofthelocalmunicipality. Bycontrast,alicensethatestablishesa particular competency in a profession, such as in law, medicine, or engineering, for example, may cut across geographical regions or provide a basis for other authorities to recognize and issue equivalent licenses based on previously-established professional competence. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that it meets this regulatory 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) p. 6 The Petitioner has not submitted evidence for consideration under this criterion. The record includes a statement from the Beneficiary that she "commanded a remuneration ... a great award ofproperty," wh iI~ Istates that the Benet iciary received "a super high salary reward." These statements are vague and uncorroborated by evidence establishing an actual salary. 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 alleges that the Director erred in not recognizing the Beneficiary's membership as a senior statistician within tha IStatistical Senior Title Evaluation Committee. This committee hasalsobeentranslatedasthe'I lstatisticalAssociations"inotherpartsoftherecord. The Petitioner does not acknowledge or explain the difference. Other documentation within the record states that the Beneficiary "was rated as senior technical title byl !Personnel Bureau andl IBureau of Statistics as Senior Statistician" and that "[a]11 Senior Statisticians are members of the Statistical Associations." Evenifthevaryingtitlesandtranslationsforthisassociation/committeewereacceptedas credible, we would still need to take note of the fact that the record states that the Beneficiary "used to be amembership[sic]oftheI IStatisticalAssociations"(italicsadded). ThePetitionerdoes not state when the Beneficiary stopped being a member and based on the evidence of record, it cannot be determined whether the Beneficiary was a member of this association/committee at the time of filing the petition.
On appeal, the Petitioner submits evidence that the Beneficiary is a new member of two additional associations. However,wecannotconsideranymembershipsgainedafterthefilingdateofthepetition as evidence to establish the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing.Not eligible at the time of filing We acknowledge the Petitioner's statements on appeal that the Beneficiary has joined the events of Google, Amazon, and WeWork "on Meetup" and has been a member of these associations since 2015, however little evidence was submitted to corroborate these claims. On appeal, the Petitioner submits screenshot printouts suggesting the Beneficiary went to two event "meetups"ho sted by Google Developer Group, events which appear to have occurred after the petition filing. Although the printouts suggest the Beneficiary attended the event, neither establishes that the Beneficiary is a Google Developer Group member, and even if a member, the Petitioner submitted no evidence to show how this group relates to the claimed area of exceptional ability. Also on appeal, the Petitioner submits screenshots of an account the Beneficiary registered with the California Association of Standards and Agricultural Professions (CASAP), but the printout does not include any indication of when the account was created or whether the account signifies actual membership in CASAP. Finally, a screenshot of an on line membership in the International Association for Agricultural Sustainability states that the Beneficiary's membership is in "draft" status, does not indicate when the Beneficiary's status became "draft," or explain what "draft" status means. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied this 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 Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion based upon the letters of reference previously submitted. However, upon de nova review, we conclude that the deficiencies in the reference p. 7 letters, including a lack of detail and insufficient corroborating evidence, do not a sup po rt a fin ding that thePetitionerestablishedeligibilityunderthiscriterion. Asnotedabove,themajorityofthelettersdonot clearlydescribehowtheauthorsknowtheBeneficiary. Moreover,theDirectorobservedthattheletters o f f er general praise but do not contain specific examples as to how the Beneficiary's work has influenced the field.Past record does not show influence or success 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. Atty 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 expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact").
Indeed, the authors reference the Beneficiary's talent and character but do not provide specific examples ofachievementorcontributionbeyondlistingtheBeneficiaiy'semploymenthistory. Although! I stated that the Beneficiary's scientific research made significant contributions to the agricultural ~ t i o n of the county, the record contains little evidence to corroborate such a claim.7 Similarly□ L__Jand the Petitioner claim that the Beneticiary wrote a large number of agricultural economic analysis reports and articles which were cited by major newspapers and government entities. The record contains little evidence demonstrating the Beneficiary's publications, that they have garnered citations, or how her work has otherwise affected the field as a whole. Much of the Beneficiary's claimed achievement occurred in the 1980s and early 1990s. The letters and other documentation within the record do not suggest achievements or contributions to this industry or field more recently than 1992. On appeal, the Petitioner alleges that the Director mischaracterized the Beneficiary's award as a local I Iaward when it was in fact a prestigious national award, which won first place under the National Statistics Bureau Rural Sampling Survey Corps and second place under the National Statistical System. 8 It appears that the Beneficiary won the award for her research and writing of an article, though it is notclearfromthe recordwhatworkwent into the research and writing or why it garnered recognition. The Petitioner provided scant corroborating details concerning the award. Moreover, we note several discrepancies in the translation of the award that undermine its credibility. First, the award itself includes a date o f " l 9 8 7 " b u t some translations and references made to the award indicate that the Beneficiary received the award in 1988. The translation submitted within the initial filing states that in 1987 the Beneficiary was awarded an "Honor Certification" and that it was for work performed by a team, while the BeneticiatV wal the writer. The translation also contains reference to both the National Statistics Bureau and Rural Sampling Survey Corps as the issuing bodies of the award. The translation providedonappealcharacterizestheawardasgivenirC]1988andthatitwas"FirstPrize." Thename o f the issuing entity changes to "National Statistics Bureau Rural Sampling Survey Corps," which appears to combine the National Statistics Bureau and thel IRural Sampling Survey Corps into one entity. As a whole, the record contains inconsistent information regarding the type of award, what work it was for, when it was awarded, and what entity issued it. We acknowledge the Petitioner's statements that 20,000 people worked at the National Statistics Bureau Rural Sampling Survey Corps at the time of the award, however, this figure does not relate how many individuals competed for the award or how outside ofthe Beneficiary's home country.
Thereferenceto"county"alsoimpliesa localinfluencethatisnotnationalin scope,letaloneinformativeofinfluence Therecordcontainsonlyoneaward. ItisnotapparentfromtheevidencethattheBeneficiarywontwoawards. p. 8 prestigious it was. The Petitioner presented little evidence showing that this award is recognized beyond the presenting institution or indicative of influence on the field as a whole.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's As the Director noted, the award does not state any specific details about what made the Beneficiary's contribution award-worthy orhowsheplayedaleading,critical,orindispensablerole. Therefore,thePetitionerhasnotsatisfied this criterion.
Summary
The record does not support the Director's 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). The Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary'seligibilityasanindividualofexceptionalabilityundersection203(b)(2)(A)oftheAct As previously outlined, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary is either an advanced degree professional or possesses exceptional ability before we reach the question of the national interest waiver. ThePetitionerdoesnotclaimthattheBeneficiaryisanadvanceddegreeprofessional,andas previously discussed, has not shown that the Beneficiary meets regulatory criteria for classification as an individual of exceptional ability.
B. NationalInterestWaiver
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification, the issue of the national interest waiver is moot. 9 The waiver is available onlyto foreign workers who othetwise qualifyforclassificationundersection203(b)(2)(A)oftheAct. However,becausetheDirectoraddressed the matter and the Petitioner's appeal alleges en-or in the Director's decision, we briefly discuss the evidence and arguments submitted on appeal .10 The Petitioner explains that the Beneficiary's award, herl Ibusiness Iicense valid from 2004-2015, her former membership in a statisticians' association, along with new membership in additional organizations, all serve as evidence that the Beneficiary is well positioned to advance the ]roposed endeavor. For the reasons discussed above, the license to operate a retail shop in and the
Beneficiary's memberships are not sufficient evidence in this matter.
The Petitioner alleges that the Director mischaracterized the Beneficiary's award as a provincial award rather than a national award, which reduced the Beneficiaiy's impact in the field to a local level. While we acknowledge that the award is national in scope, the Petitioner presented little evidence showing that this award is recognized beyond the presenting institution or indicative of influence on the field as a whole. Evenifthevariationsintranslationsoftheawardhadnotdiminisheditscredibility,theDirector already noted that the award did not state any specific details about what made the Beneficiary's Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive ofthe Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reservetheargumentsregardingtheendeavor'ssubstantialmeritandnationalimportance. SeeINSv. Bagamasbad,429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courtsand agencies are notrequired to make findings on issues the decision ofwhich is unnecessaiy 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).
contributionaward-worthyorhowsheplayedaleading,critical,orindispensablerole. Finally,thisaward was given in 1987 or 1988, and the Petitioner offers little evidence of sustained or recent contributions to the field such that it would suggest furtherance of the proposed endeavor.
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a business plan to address the evidentiary discrepancies described in the Director's decision, namely concerning the progress towards the proposed endeavor as well as the interest that potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals have in the endeavor. In review, we conclude that the business plan largely repeats information previously provided. Regarding the limited new information in the plan, the content is theoretical and vague, containing descriptions of ideas with little apparentthoughtasto how the ideas might be accomplished. For instance, the plan discusses the recruitment of managers and staff, but does not describe where the revenue comes from to pay these new recruits. Parts of the plan include utilizing wasteland for crops, but the plan does not reference where the land is, how it will be purchased or leased, or the infrastructure required to use it. The plan references opening organic plant shops and participating in weekend farmer's markets but contains no information on where specifically the shops and markets will be, how the Petitioner intends to buy or build them, or whatthe expected revenuewill be for them. Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake the numerous proposed projects, the Petitioner has not shown that its plan forfutureactivities rendersthe Beneficiary well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Although the Beneficiary has obtained a driver's license, insurance, and AAA membership, little else has been accomplished. The plan lists some of the Petitioner's tasks towards the proposed endeavor, most ofwhich are "in progress," and it does not includeexplanationsofhowmuchorwhatprogresshasbeenmadeinthoseareas. Whenviewedin the totality, the business plan does not address the evidentiary concerns outlined in the Director's decision.
The Petitioner also asserts that it would be beneficial to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements. The Petitioner states that the proposed endeavor will enrich the community by creating jobs, as well as offering agricultural products that are healthier for people and the environment, however, the business plan did not sufficiently document the Beneficiary's prospective contributions in this area.Plan or projections not corroborated Although the Petitioner claims that these contributions are urgent and the labor certification would be impracticable, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why this is so.No urgency shown Moreover, the Petitioner did not address how the Beneficiary's self-employment would affect U.S. workers. ThePetitionerclaimsthattheendeavorwillcreate1,600+jobsbuthasnotsubstantiatedthis claimwithsufficientspecificinformation. Inthetotality,thePetitionerhasnotadequatelyaddressed the deficiencies outlined in the Director's decision concerning the benefits o f waiving the job offer and labor certification requirements.
Ill. CONCLUSION
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptionalabilityundersection203(b)(2)(A)oftheAct. Inaddition,thePetitionerhasnotshownthat the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, nor that awaiver of the job offer requirement 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.