professional. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, under section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years ofprogressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification.2 1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii).
We will then conduct a final merits determination to determine whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest."
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,3 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that:
- The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance;
- The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
As an initial matter, we must withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional. As confirmed by the provided evaluation, the Petitioner's Brazilian bachelor's degree is the equivalent "of three and one half years of [b]achelor's-level studies at an accredited institution of higher learning in the United States." The evaluator concludes that the combination of the Petitioner's bachelor's degree and lato sensu diploma is "the equivalent of a [b]achelor' s degree in [b]usiness [ a ]dministration."
Information from the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) supports the evaluation, stating that: 4 The 3-year Titulo de Bacharel/Grau de Bacharel represents attainment of a level of education comparable to 3 years of university study in the United States. Credit may be awarded on a course-by-course basis. The 4- or 5-year Titulo de Bacharel/Grau de Bacharel represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States.
EDGE also indicates that:
Professional development and specialization programs are considered lato sensus/ wide sense graduate level programs and follow independent legislation. Such programs lead toward professional certificates, not graduate degrees. They require 1 to 2 or 3 years of study.
For the above reasons, the Petitioner holds the "equivalent of a [b]achelor's degree," rather than a "foreign equivalent degree" as required by 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(2). 5 We cannot conclude that she qualifies as an advanced degree professional with anything less than a "United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent." In addition, as the Petitioner does not claim (and the record does not establish) that she is an individual of exceptional ability, she has not demonstrated eligibility for the underlying classification.
Regarding the Petitioner's assertions related to the national importance of her proposed endeavor, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision on this issue with the comments below. 6 See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir.
1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of Appeals in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case).
While we agree with the Director's analysis and conclusions regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor, we note the following. Because the Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing, her claims related to the human resources group she started after the filing of her petition cannot be considered. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971).Not eligible at the time of filing We are also not persuaded by the Petitioner's arguments that the proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of human resources professionals.Relied on a labor shortage The Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor would impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage.
Notably, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.
Further, because the identified bases for denial are dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's remaining appellate arguments. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.