The Petitioner, a drill operator, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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).
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director further concluded that the Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest.
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.
Law
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. 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 oftheir exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, p. 2 cultural or educational interests, or welfare ofthe United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. . . . the 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 1he United States.
For the purpose of determining eligibility under section 203(b)(2)(A) ofthe Act, "exceptional ability" is defined as "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The regulations further provide six criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied, for an individual to establish exceptional ability:
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution o f learning relating to the area o f exceptional ability;
(B) Evidence in the form ofletter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought;
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation; (D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other renumeration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability; (E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or (F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32(D.D.C. 2013);Rijalv. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece o f evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and withinthe contextofthetotalityoftheevidence,todeterminewhetherthefacttobeprovenisprobably true." MatterofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010).
Analysis
As noted above, the Director concluded that the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualified forclassificationasanindividualofexceptionalability. Specifically,althoughthePetitionerasserted that he satisfied the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(B), (E)-(F), the Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied none of them. On appeal, the Petitioner reasse1is that he satisfies the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(B), (E)-(F). The Petitioner does not assert, and the record does not support the conclusion, that he satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C)- (D), or that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) do not readily apply to the occupation, such that comparableevidencemayestablisheligibility. ThePetitioneralsodoesnotassert,andtherecorddoes not supp01i the conclusion, that the Petitioner may qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. For the reasons discussed below, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied at least three of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii).
A. DegreeorSimilarAwardfromanInstitutionofLearning
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) requires "[a]n official academic record showing that the [noncitizen] 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." In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director acknowledged that the record contains English translations of two training certificates, written in a language other than English, given to the Petitioner by Ihowever, the Director informed the Petitioner thatI Iis not a college, university, school, or other institution of learning as contemplated by the regulation. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner asserted that a certificate-issuing institution need only be "an institution relating to the field of exceptional ability," not necessarily an institution of learning. In the decision, the Director found thatl a manufacturerofindustrialandagriculturalequipment,isnotaninstitutionoflearningas contemplated by the regulation; therefore, the certificates the Petitioner received froml do not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A).
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that is both a company engaged in the manufacture and support of high-quality industrial and agricultural equipment (including that for [horizontal directional drilling (HDD)], as well as an institution of learning." In support of that assertion, the Petitioner submits an undated copy of an article self-published by Iannouncing that it has partnered p. 4 with thel IArea Community College to host a two-weekHDD operator training program to become certified as an HDD operator. The Petitioner's reliance onl Iself-published article is misplaced. Rather than establishing that Iis the type of institution of learning contemplated by the regulation, the article specifically quotesl Ivice president o f underground products as saying, "While other training programs may provide a certificate of completion, each student who successfully completes the I IHDD Circuit training program will be certified as an HDD operator from an accredited college." Therefore, it appears that thel IArea Community College, notI Iis the institution of learning that would issue the certificate of completion for the HDD operator training program. We note that the Petitioner's certificates were for training held from January 13 through 18, 2013, and for training held on March 7, 2015. Neither training was the two-week training program t h r o u g h partnership with the I IArea Community College. Neither certificate referencesthe Community College,oranyotherinstitutionoflearning. Moreover,neither certificate is supplemented by an official academic record, as required bythe regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). Based on the information in the record from _ _ the Petitioner's certificates for one-week and one-day training programs appear to be the mere "certificate[s] of completion," described by its vice president of underground products, not certifications from an accredited college or other institution of learning. The record does not otherwise contain an official academic record showing that the Petitioner has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution oflearning relating to the area of exceptional ability; therefore, the record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A).
B. LettersfromEmployersShowingatLeast10YearsofFull-TimeExperienceintheOccupation The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) requires "[e]vidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the [noncitizen] has at least ten years of full-time experienceintheoccupationforwhichheorsheisbeingsought." Therecordcontainslettersfrom former employers of the Petitioner, stating his dates of employment,job titles, and job duties. The letters indicate that the Petitioner's employment experience is as follows:
- January 2007 to May 2012 (approximately five years, five months): horizontal directional drilling machine operator forj I
- September 2013 to December 2015 (approximately two years, four months): drilling sanitation operator forl
- February 2018 to August2018 (approximately seven months): unspecifiedjob title for and
- November 2018 to May 2019 (approximately seven months): drilling safety operator for
Based on the letters from the Petitioner's prior employers, as ofthe petition filing date, the Petitioner had approximately eight years and 11 months of experience in the occupation for which he is being sought. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted documents that purport to be English translations of contracts for the Petitioner's work; however, the Director noted that the Petitionerdidnotsubmitcopiesoftheunderlyingoriginallanguagedocuments. ThePetitioneralso submitted a letter from his current employer in response to the RFE; however, the Director noted that p. 5 it may not establish eligibility because it addresses experience that occurred after the filing date. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see also Matter ofMichelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248,249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978) (a visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after a petitionerbecomes eligible under anew set offacts);Matteroflzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169,176 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1998) (a petitioner may notmakematerial changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petitionconformtoU.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServicesrequirements). TheDirectorconcluded that the record did not establish that the Petitioner had at least 10 years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he is being sought.
O n a p p e a l , t h e P e t i t i o n e r c l a r i f i e s t h a t t h e d o c u m e n t s s u b m i t t e d i n r e s p o n s e to t h e R F E a r e t r a n s l a t i o n s of documents issued by the Brazilian Department ofLabor, reflecting contracts between the Petitioner and his respective employers, listed above. Moreover, the Petitioner asserts that the documents establish nine such contracts, totaling 121 months ofexperience.
The Petitioner's reliance on the translation of the Brazilian Department ofLabor records ofcontracts between him and prior employers is misplaced. The regulation requires "[e]vidence in the form of letter(s)from currentorformeremployer(s) showingthatthe [noncitizen] has at least ten years of full- timeexperienceintheoccupationforwhichheorsheisbeingsought." 8C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) (emphasisadded). ThelettersfromthePetitioner'sprioremployersshowthathehasapproximately eight years and 11 months of experience in the occupation for which he is being sought, not at least 10 years of experience. Moreover, the record does not clarify why several of the Petitioner's prior employers omitted periods of employment that he asserted in response to the RFE. The letter from I • Idated July 2020, omitted that it employed the Petitioner again from June 2013 to August 2013, as the Petitioner asserted in response to the RFE. Likewise, the letter fmm I
Idated August2020, omitted that it employed the Petitioner again from August 2018 to November 2018, as the Petitioner asserted in response to the RFE. The letter from _ _ _ _ _ _ _ dated July 2020, omitted that it employed the Petitioner again from October 2019 to February 2020, as the Petitioner asserted in response to the RFE. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.Inconsistencies in the record Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency ofother evidence submitted in support ofthe requested immigration benefit. Id.
C. EvidenceofRecognitionforAchievementsandSignificantContributionstotheIndustry The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) requires "[e]vidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional orbusinessorganizations." TheDirectoracknowledgedthattherecordcontainsanEnglishtranslation of an undated merit certificate froml Ioriginally written in a language other than English, recognizing the Petitioner's "excellent work, responsibility, competence, and commitment to the [s]afety, [h]ealth, [e]nvironmental and [q]uality objectives of the company." However, the Director noted that the record does not establish how the certificate for the Petitioner's work for that company is evidence ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field of horizontal drilling. The Director also acknowledged that letters in the record from four of the Petitioner's prior employers, discussed above, focused on his achievements and contributions to each specific employer; however, the Director noted that the letters "did not elaborate regarding the [P]etitioner's recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry of field as a whole."Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's The Director also acknowledged that a letter from indicated that it intended to hire the Petitioner and that he is well suited for the position but, like the prior employers' letters, the prospective employer's letter did not "elaborate regarding the [P]etitioner' s recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field as a whole."
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner resubmitted prior letters, and he submitted a new letter from _ _ _ _ _ _ addressing the Petitioner's work beginning in October 2020, after the petitionfilingdate. However,asdiscussedabovetheDirectorexplainedinthedecisionthatthenew letter froml Icould not establish eligibility because it addresses experience that occurredafter the filing date.Not eligible at the time of filing See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(6)(1); see also Matter ofMichelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. at 249· Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 176. The Petitioner also submitted a letter fro an associate professor ofbiomedical industrial and systems engineering at University, in response to the RFE. The Director acknowledged that Iletter summarized the Petitioner's career; however, the Director found that the letter "does not provide any specific examples of how the [Petitioner] has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field ofhorizontal drilling outside of the direct benefit he provided to eachofhisemployers." TheDirectorthenconcludedthattherecorddidnotsatisfytheregulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F).
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the letters addressed by the Director satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F)underthe preponderance of evidence standard. Under the preponderance of evidence standard, a petitioner must establish that a "claim is 'probably true,' where the determination of 'truth' is made based on the factual circumstances ofeach individual case." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&NDec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010) (quotingMatterofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79- 80 (Comm'r 1989)). Factors include evidence's relevance,probative value, and credibility. Id.
For this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the claim that he has received recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field of horizontal drilling by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations is probably true. See id. The certificate and letters from the Petitioner's prior and cunentemployers are relevant to the issue because they are from business organizations. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F); see also Matter a Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 76. However, the Petitioner has not established that the letter from _ _ _ an p. 7 associate professor working for a private academic institution, is from a peer of the Petitioner, a governmental entity, or a representative of a professional or business organization within the industry or field of horizontal drilling as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). Moreover I letter discusses whether the Petitioner satisfies the criteria set forth in the precedent decision Matter o fDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), not whether the Petitioner has received recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field ofhorizontal drilling.
Although the certificate froml Ias translated into English, is relevant, it bears minimal probative value. The extent ofthe undated certificate's remarks are: I Icongratulates [the Petitioner] for demonstrating excellent work, responsibility, competence, and commitment to the [s]afety, [h]ealth, [e]nvironmental and [q]uality objectives ofthe company." It did not recognize the Petitioners achievements or significant contributions to the industry or field of horizontal drilling beyondthe"objectivesofthecompany." Withoutmore,achievementsorsignificantcontributionsto a particular entity are not automatically achievements or significant contributions to a greater industry or field merely because the entity operates within a greateirndustry or field. Therefore, the probative value of the Petitioner's undated certificate froml Iis diminished.
Although the letters from the Petitioner's prior employers are relevant, they bear minimal probative value. As the Director observed, the letters identified drilling projects to which the Petitioner was assigned, and they summarized the duties he performed while assigned to those projects. They also comment on how the communities served by the drilling projects benefited from the completion of the projects. However, as the Director also observed, the letters did not address how the Petitioner's performance of assigned duties and the completion of particular projects to which he was assigned demonstrate that he received recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field of horizontal drilling. Again, without more, achievements or significant contributions to a particular entity are not automatically achievements or significant contributions to a greater industry orfieldmerelybecausetheentityoperateswithinagreaterindustryorfield. Therefore,theprobative value of the letters from the Petitioner's prior employers is diminished.
Although the letters from the Petitioner's current employer are relevant, they also bear minimal probative value. As the Director observed, the first letter from the Petitioner's current employer indicated that it intended to hire the Petitioner, it summarized what his duties would be, and it asserted that the Petitioner is qualified for the position. However, as the Director also observed, it did not address whether the Petitioner has received recognition for achievements and significant contributions totheindustryorfieldofhorizontaldrilling. Inturn,althoughthePetitionersubmittedasecondletter from his currentemployerin response to the RFE, as the Director explained in the decision, the second letter may not establish eligibility to the extent that it addresses experience that occurred after the filing date. See8C.F.R.§103.2(b)(l);seealsoMatterofMichelinTireCorp.,17I&NDec.at249;Matter oflzummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 176. The letter does not otherwise address whether the Petitioner received recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field ofhorizontal drilling asofthepetitionfilingdate. Seeid. Therefore,theprobativevalueofthelettersfromthePetitioner's current employer is diminished. Because the record does not contain evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field of horizontal drilling by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations, it does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F).
D. EvidenceofMembershipinProfessionalAssociations
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) requires "[e]vidence of membership in professional associations." The record contains a copy of a printout from the International Association of Directional Drilling (IADD), indicating that the held a basic membership with the IADD from July 14, 2020, through July 14, 2021. In the RFE, the Director inforn1ed the Petitioner that the record did not establish that the IADD is a professional association. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a copy of information printed from Linkedin about the International Association of DiecuttingandDiemaking,whichis dissimilarto theInternationalAssociationofDirectionalDrilling. The Petitioner also submitted a copy of basic membership information printed from IADD's website. The Director noted that the IADD information indicates that the only stated requirement for the Petitioner's basic membership is an annual $75 fee. Based on the information in the record, the Director concluded that "the evidence does not establish the [P]etitioner's membership in this professional association represents anything more than a paid membership fee" and not "a result of the [P]etitioner' s exceptional ability."
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the IADD is the type of professional association contemplated bytheregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). ThePetitionerfurtherasse1isthathismembership, at the time of filing, with the IADD satisfies the regulation. In supportof the assertions on appeal, the Petitioner submits a copy of information printed from the IADD 's website, stating that the IADD is "a non-profit organization dedicated to expanding the directional drilling industry" and that its "members are industry professionals who share ideas and develop safety and performance standards that contribute to our knowledge base."
Becausetherecorddoesnototherwisesatisfytwoofthecriteriaat8C.F.R. §204.5(k)(3)(ii),ofwhich at least three are required, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the IADD is the type of professional association contemplated by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E), or whether the regulation requires anything beyond a fee-based membership. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision ofwhich 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).
In summation, the record does not satisfy at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Therefore, the record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. We reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies any ofthe criteria set forth in Malter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n. 7.
Conclusion
The record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification as an individual of extraordinary ability; therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.