The Petitioner, an assistant professor of international studies, 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 apetitioner 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. MatterofDhanasar,26l&NDec.884(AAO2016).
The Texas Service Center Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an advanced degree professional and that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance . However, the Director concluded that the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the 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 offers abrief and additional evidence to argue that she qualifies for anational interest waiver. 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 anational interestwaiver,apetitioner mustfirst 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 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 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 interest," we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision MatterofDhanasar,26l&NDec.884(AAO2016). Inannouncingthisnewframework,wevacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionaty in nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted if the petitioner demonstrates: (1 )thatthe foreignnational'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. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs.
Analysis
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The Petitioner holds a doctorate degree in international studies, which she earned from a U.S. universityin2015. TheDirectorfoundthattheevidenceofrecordestablishedthesubstantialmeritand national importance of the proposed endeavor. However, upon de nova review and for the reasons discussed below, we must withdraw the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner met the national importance portion of the first prong. In addition, we agree with the Director that the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the second Dhanasar prong.
A National Importance
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, we withdraw the Director's finding concerning the national importance portion of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong. As the below discussion illustrates, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding thatthe endeavor has national importance.
On the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, which the Petitioner filed in January 2019, she provided the following information:
Part 5 - Additional Information About the Petitioner Section 11. Occupation: International Relations Researcher Part 6 - Basic Information About the Proposed Employment Section 1. Job Title: Assistant Professor in International Studies Section 2. SOC Code: 19-3094
Section3. NontechnicalJobDescription: Prepareanddeliverlecturestocollegestudents on topics such as International Relations, Security Studies. Conduct research in International Studies field, publish findings in professional journals.
The Petitioner's resume indicates that at the time of filing, she held an adjunct professor position at whether the Petitioner is currently employed as a professor, as well as whether her intended employment is as a professor or solely as a researcher.
Her personal statement provided background concerning her past accomplishments, as well as her future research plans and job o[portunities. The Petitioner stated that in the coming years, she intends to "extend [her] research on !foreign policy to support civil society as the cornerstone of improved maintenance ofpublic affairs in emerging societies and countries" and that herresearch"addressesfundamentalissuesforlastingpeaceandstabilityintheworld." Sheexpressed certainty that she will "make a significant contribution to enhancing the studf of nattonal security issues." She further clarified that she intends to extend her "prior research on s geopolitical challenges to the United States andl lby using new and more advanced approaches to obtain a proper database o~ Ipropaganda, segmented lymedij' topic, target audience, and reach, that greatly improves the works of all analysts studying information warfare." The Petitioner explained that she is seeking employment opportunities to continue her work and noted that she had an interview for an assistant professor position scheduled with the international studies department of the Universit~ IShe also stated that she was certain of her ability to r1i,od,suitableemploymentwithinherfieldonceshereceivesavisa. Therecordcontainsemailsfrom L_Jassigning the Petitioner to teach two Spring 2019 courses, as well as requesting her course preferences for Summer and Fall 2019. Additionally, the Petitioner asserted that she conducts peer reviews of others' academic work and serves as on the editorial board of1 I. an academic journal. Based upon the information provided, the Petitioner's future plans remain unclear. As previously noted, her statement on the Form 1-140 indicates that her proposed employment is as an assistant professor in international studies, while her Form ETA 750, Part B indicates her prospective employment will be as an international relations researcher. The conflicting information provided prevents us from determining if the Petitioner currently works as an adjunct professor and if so, how much time she will devote to teaching as opposed to research. This is significant, as we determined in Dhanasar that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the leveI of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. In addition, we cannot ascertain how much time the Petitioner intends to devote to research while also pursuing her consulting, analyst, peer review, and editorial board activities.
Finally, the Petitioner appears to be engaged in an active employment search, as evidenced by her interview for an assistant professor position at the Universit'A Iand her statement that she is certain to find suitable employment. The Petitioner did not provide details on what "suitable employment" involves and we cannot ascertain whether her proposed endeavor activities will encompass this future and unknown employment or whether she intends to perform I, as well as served as an international consultant for thel I , ,I and as a contributing analyst tori l On her ETA 750 Part B, the Petitioner listed her employment as an international consultant and as a contributing analyst but stated that she held her position as an adjunct professor withc=Jonly until December 2018. Also on the ETA 750 Part B, she listed her prospective position as an international relations researcher and referred our attention to her personal statement for further details. In viewing the Petitioner's Form I-140, resume, and ETA 750 Part B collectively, we note discrepancies both in IInconsistencies in the record
I , p. 5 research outside of and apart from whatever "suitable employment" she finds. We question what the Petitioner's proposed endeavor actually involves and note that the purpose of a national interest waiver is not to afford a petitioner an opportunity to engage in a U.S. job search. In Dhanasar, we held that apetitionermustidentify"thespecificendeavorthattheforeignnationalproposestounde1iake." Id. at 889. Although the record contains explanations of past and current employment and research, we have insufficient information concerning the Petitioner's proposed future endeavor to co nc Iude that it has national importance.
To evaluate whether a petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" o f the work. With respect to the Petitioner's teaching, we conclude that the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that such activities would impactthe field of international relations more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the specific students and university she may serve.Benefits limited to an employer or its clients The Petitioner has not included sufficient evidence of the specific future activities she will engage in, which inhibits a determination concerning the proposed endeavor's broader impact and therefore its national importance.No broader implications shown Accordingly, we conclude that her endeavor, as currently described, does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
A review o f the Petitioner's evidence does not clarify her proposed endeavor, nor persuasively establish itsnationalimportance. ThePetitionerprovidedonlinecommentaryfromacademicandnewssources asserting the significance and relevance of the international relations field, particularly to U.S. interests. However, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Id. at 889. Although the Petitioner asserted that her "state-of-the-art research in international relations offers novel insight into the position of the [United States] in the global world order, which guides the development and implementation of informed foreign policies that optimize outcomes for both the United States and its international partners," she has not provided sufficient documentation to substantiate these claims. The Petitioner has not explained how her research is "state-of-the-art" or even what such a claim meansinthecontextofresearch. Forinstance,shehasnotassertedthatherresearchmethodsarenew or different from traditional research methods or the methods already used by others. Furthermore, the claim that she offers "novel insights" is not supp01ied by the record. In examining the documentation, we observe evidence that many others study, publish, and offer their research-based perspectives on similar topics. The record contains insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Petitioner's research has offered novel insights, particularly as the record contains evidence demonstrating that other researchers have also considered similar concepts.
The Petitioner offered evidence of her research publications and that at the time of filing her petition in January 2019, her work had been cited nine times. While we acknowledge that evidence of the impact her past work has had provides a basis to suggest that her future work will have a similar impact, this past research acclaim does not in itself establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Here, the Petitioner has not identified the specificnatureof her proposed future activities so that we might determine the endeavor's possible impact, nor has she identified how any future research would be disseminated into the community such that its potential can be properly evaluated. To illustrate, if the Petitioner holds an adjunct professor position while also researching, this may inform how she publishes and disseminates her research ideas. Alternatively, if she performs research independently and holds nootheremploymeni p. 6 we question how she will fund her research work and publish any findings concerning it. Finally, obtaining undefined "suitable employment" at an unknown time could detract from the time she might devote to research. As the impact created by such scenarios would vary, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established how her past research record supports a f indingthat herfutureworkwill have asimilar impact or that such impact would rise to the level of national importance.
Although we acknowledge the Petitioner's claims that her research has informed foreign policy, the recorddoesnotcontainsufficientorpersuasiveevidencetosupportsuchaconclusion. Wereviewedthe letter from I Iwhich the Petitioner submitted inresp,nseto the Director's request for evidence (RFE). I Ithe Director of Public Policy at asserted that thel I I Ia combat command of the United States Department of Defense, "funded the Petitioner's efforts to understand! lgovemment intentions through a study of state media." While we acknowledge this letter and the rintout of a report co-authored by the Petitioner concerning the role of I the record contains insufficient evidence to corroborate I I claims. Forinstance,therecorddoesnotcontainevidence,suchasamoneytransfer,check,orcontract, to corroborate that any U.S. defense enti aid the Petitioner to conduct this study. Moreover, the documentationdoesnotsuggestthatthe ado tedan oliciesasaresultofthe Petitioner's study. The news article printout regarding t h e ~ - - - - - - - ~ s work inc=J I Iprovides helpful background into the possible reasons for commissioning a study, but the article I does not suggest that the Petitioner's research had any bearing on thel or that they specifically commissioned the Petitioner to conduct research on their behalf. although! Iclaims to be a former researcher within thd when he left that role and joined his current role a nor can we ascertain the nature ofl authority to comment on behalf of the,____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. Based upon this evidence, the Petitioner has not established her research has informed foreign policy or that her proposed endeavor has national importance.
While the Petitioner submitted numerous letters of recommendation from other researchers and academics in the field, few authors discussed the Petitioner's proposed future endeavor. Instead, the authors primarily focused on the Petitioner's past work. As such, these letters do not assist in our understanding of the proposed endeavor. In examining the authors' claims concerning the Petitioner's past research, we observe that the impact of her research appears limited to academia. The authors offer little detail to substantiate a finding that the Petitioner's research has affected the international relationsfieldasawhole. Although! !assertedthatthePetitioner'sresearch onl Inational security policy has provided insights that inform the foreign policy of the United States, neither this letter nor the record substantiates such a claim. Similarly, although! I Idescribed the Petitioner's research as "groundbreaking," her publications as "influential," and that she has proposed "innovative frameworks," he offered insufficient detail to explain such assertions. For instance, he did not explain why her research was groundbreaking or different, who or what specifically her publications have influenced, or what innovative frameworks she has proposed for understanding foreign policy inl ILikewise, ~ - - - - - - ~ c o m m e n t e d on the Petitioner's "innovative approach" as an example ofthe Petitioner's vital role in the field but offered little detail to explain what the Petitioner's approach is or how it is innovative in comparison to others in the field. l's policies In addition, I, it is unclear l's
Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. 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").
Overall, the Petitioner has not clearly identified how her research activities fit in with her future employment plans. The record does not include consistent information or sufficient supporting evidence identifying how the Petitionerwill allocate her time between her various activities or whether her proposed endeavor of research includes employment as a professor or in some other position that she will find at an unknown future time. As she has not identified what specific future activities she will engage in and how, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor will have a broaderimpactornationalimportance. Fortheforegoingreasons,wewithdrawtheDirector'sfinding concerning the Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong and conclude instead that the evidence is insufficient and lacks the requisite detail necessary to support a finding that the endeavor has national importance.
B. WhetherthePetitionerisWellPositionedtoAdvancetheProposedEndeavor
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong, eligibility under the second and third prongs is moot. A national interest waiver is only available to those who establish eligibility for the underlying classification and under all three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. Nevertheless, because the Director made additional findings concerning the Petitioner's eligibility under the second Dhanasar prong and the Petitioner asserts error in those fin dings, we provide additional analysis concerning the Petitioner's eligibility under the second Dhanasar prong. As previously explained, the record contains conflicting information concerning whether the Petitioner is currently employed as a professor and how her research activities f i t in with her future employment plans. The unclear nature of the proposed endeavor inhibits a proper assessment of whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance it.
AnalysisunderthesecondprongshiftsthefocusfromtheproposedendeavortothePetitioner. Inour precedent Dhanasar decision, we found "[t]he petitioner's education, experience, and expertise in his field, the significance of his role in research projects, as well as the sustained interest of and funding from government entities such as NASA and AFRL, position him well to continue to advance his proposed endeavor of hypersonic technology research." Id. at 893. Although the record demonstrates that the Petitioner's advanced degree is relevant to international relations research and that she has some experience in the field, the Petitioner has not persuasively established her expertise, that she holds a significant role in her field, that there is sustained interest in her work, or that she has received funding for her past research or for her future endeavor.No interest from users, customers or investors Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient to conclude that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her endeavor.
We acknowledge that the Petitioner authored a book and additional individual chapters published within larger collections of research, and that these publications had collectively garnered nine citations at the time of filing. In addition, we acknowledge the Petitioner's appellate arguments concerning the p. 8 limitations of Google Scholar and that Microsoft Academic affords an improved perspective on the Petitioner's record ofsuccess. However, as Dhanasar demonstrates, we look to avariety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is wel I positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and citations are merelyonefactoramongmanythatmaycontributetosuchafinding. Whileninecitationsmayindicate some level of success in her field of endeavor, such a citation record does not persuasively support the Petitioner's claim that her work is widely recognized.Citation record not persuasive Moreover, much o f the Petitioner's published research appears intertwined with or supported by her former research faculty supervisor,! I I IFor example,! !wrote the Petitioner's first book review and many of the Petitioner's published chapters appear inl l's textbook materials. The Petitioner has not provided persuasive evidence of her expertise and experience in research that is independent from the support and established platformprovidedbyherformerfacultyresearch!supervirr. Additionally,thePetitionerappearsasaco- author on aresearch report concerning the role of news mediairl land it is therefore notapparenthowmuchofthePetitioner'sownresearchwentintothisreport. Baseduponthisevidence, it appears as though the Petitioner has received collaborative support from others in producing research and we question her record of success in producing research independently.
The Petitioner submitted evidence that others have reviewed her work and provided their opinions on her publications, which she argued supports a finding that her work has been favorably received in the field ofinternationalrelations. Inexaminingthereviews,weobservethatmostappeartobegeneralsummaries orsuppositionconcerningpossiblefutureimpact. Forinstance,aPh.D.candidatesummarizedthevarious chapters of an overall publication that contains one chapter the Petitioner wrote. The candidate's summary provides no commentary on how the Petitioner has influenced the field or any indication that thePetitioner'sworkhasbeenfavorablyreceived.Past record does not show influence or success Although~----~•apoliticalcandidatein the United Kingdom, wrote that the Petitioner'sworkwill certainly challenge scholars' views! I offered little explanation for such an assertion, nor did she claim that the Petitioner's work had any actual impact on the field. Further, the record does not establish what professional credentials! I possesses to offer her opinion on the Petitioner's work. Similarly,! Ireviewed the Petitioner's written work and offered his own summary o f i t but did not offer any comment on its quality, impact, or importance in the field. The Petitioner further claimed that researched Ireviewed her work; however, the record merely contains I Is online biography and does not contain any reviewofthePetitioner'swork. Basedontheevidenceprovided,thereviewsofthePetitioner'swritten work do not suggest a record of success or favorable status in the field that wou Id position her well to advance the proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner also claimed that she received U.S. government funding for her research and that this funding su arts a finding that she is well positioned to advance her endeavor. The Petitioner provided a copy of a contract for her work as a consultant on a project from November 2017 to May 2018. A letter from the~-~project officer indicated that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funded the project. The Petitioner's consultant role involved analyzing an academic writing program at a university in.~_ _ _ _ _ ,.......... in order to improve the university's writingcoursesandtheoverallcurriculumintheregion. Therecorddoesnotcontainevidencetosupport a finding that the Petitioner received USAI D funding for her proposed endeavor or that the funding she received extended beyond the university writing project. Furthermore, the evidence suggests the Petitioner received funding for her consultancy work in instructional methods and educational policy, ratherthanforinternationalrelationsresearch. Inaddition,thesourceoffundingappearsnottohavebeen p. 9 availabletothePetitionersincethecloseofhercontractinMay2018. Accordingly,thepastfundingshe received for her consultancy work has no bearing on her positioning to advance her proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner also claimed that she received $4,000 from thd Ito investigate I Inews media coverage and their posture t o w a r d s ~ - - - - ~ A s previously discussed, the only evidence the Petitioner provided to support such an assertion is a letter from the Director of Public I
Policy atl IThis evidence is secondary and not persuasive of actual payment or a request for the Petitioner to conduct research on behalf of the U.S. military. Moreover, the letter lacks specific dates and other corroborative and verifiable details.Support letters generic or unsupported We further conclude that it does not persuasively establish the author's prior work as a researcher fou_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ........, or his authority to comment on behalf of IEven i f we were to accept the Petitioner's contention that she received U.S. military funding for her research, this would still be insufficient to support a finding that such funding would be available for use in pursuing her proposed endeavor or that she is currentlywell positioned to advance her endeavor because of it.
The Petitioner also asserted that her position on an editorial board and her peer review of others' written work establishes her expertise in the field and thereby positions her well to advance the proposed endeavor. However, the Petitioner has not persuasively supported her contention that these activities suggest she has expertise in her field or that these activities improve her ability to carry out the proposed endeavor. For instance, the Petitioneroffered little information concerning Ihow her setvice on the board positions her as a leader in the field, what her duties are as a member, or how much time she spends on her editorial board duties. Similarly, the Petitioner has not offered data on how many articles she has peer reviewed in relation to other researchers in her field, or how the reputation of the journals and the peers for whom she reviews indicates that the Petitioner is an expert in her field. In addition, whether her proposed endeavor involves international relations research or teaching international relations as a professor, the Petitioner's work as a member on an editorial board or as a peer reviewer appearstotaketimeawayfromherotherproposedendeavoractivities. Accordingly,evenifwewereto accept the Petitioner's argument that this work demonstrates that she is an expert in her field, it would nevertheless fai I to demonstrate how she is wel I positioned to carry out her endeavor.
In her RFE response, the Petitioner asserted that she received a prestigious fellowship based on her outstanding contributions to the field. She presented a letter from the Chief Executive Officer of the ~ -----------------_ _ _ .w h ic h statedthattheyidentifiedthePetitioner as an "outstanding scholar" and that she was selected to receive a fellowship "based on her reputation for producing important research relevant to understanding th~ Iregion." The Petitioner provided little information concerning what this fellowship conferred upon her or how it is considered prestigious. It is not apparent how many other scholars received this fellowship, how many were considered overall, what qualifications! Iconsidered in making its determination, or whether the fellowship is known beyond the presenting organization. Accordingly, we conclude that this fellowship does not support a finding that the Petitioner's reputation in the field positions her well to advance her proposed endeavor.
Returning once again to the Petitioner's recommendation letters, we observe that most authors discuss the Petitioner's past research contributions. Most authors appear to have little knowledge of the Petitioner's current or future employment or funding, nor have the authors provided details concerrring the international relations community's interest in the Petitioner's proposed future work. As the p. 10 Petitioner's current and future employment status remains unclear, we question her ability to predominantly pursue research in a manner commensurate with the authors descriptions of her past work. Accordingly, the past success the authors described is insufficient to support a finding that the Petitioner is well positioned to carry out her future endeavor.
For the foregoing reasons, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to advancetheproposedendeavor. Becausethedocumentationintherecorddoesnotestablish:(1)the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision; or (2) that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under thesecondprong,thePetitionerhasnotdemonstratedeligibilityforanationalinterestwaiver. Further analysis of hereligibilityunderthe third prong outlined in Dhanasarwould serve no meaningful purpose.
Ill. CONCLUSION
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.