The Petitioner, a head engineering consultant, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor would have national importance. 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 of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in finding that his proposed endeavor would not have national importance. He further argues that the Director erred in finding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor offers benefits which extend beyond the community to impact the industry more broadly.
Regarding the issue of whether the Petitioner' s proposed endeavor has national importance, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter ofBurbano, 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 the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that appe11ate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case).
As a general matter, an appeal must specifica11y identify any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Here, while the Petitioner argues on appeal the national importance of his proposed endeavor and that it would impact his industry more broadly, he does not further elaborate how the evidence submitted with his petition establishes his p. 2 eligibility. Commensurate with the Petitioner's burden of proof is the responsibility for explaining the significance of proffered evidence. Repaka v. Beers, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1219 (S.D. Cal. 2014); see also Adler v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 112 F.3d 1475, 1481 n. 12 (11th Cir. 1997) (noting in a civil case that, absent plain error, it is not the place of an appellate body to grant appellants relief "based on facts they did not relate"). The Petitioner has not done so here. Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the submitted evidence, including the Petitioner's business plan, past work contracts, and industry reports and articles, do not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor to launch a mechanical engineering consultancy.
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the remaining eligibility requirements for the requested national interest waiver. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof).
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.