A self-petitioning athlete seeks second preference immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, as well as a national interestwaiverofthejobofferrequirementattachedtothisEB-2classification. SeeImmigrationand 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 ajob offer and thus ofa labor certification. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016).
The Nebraska Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not established that he qualifies for classification as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. In addition, the Director determined that the record did not establish eligibility under any of the Dhanasar prongs. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred in the decision .
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 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 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 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 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, USCIS may, as matter of discretion ,2 grant a national interestwaiverifthepetitionerdemonstrates: (1)thattheforeignnational'sproposedendeavorhas 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
ThePetitionerdidnotassertthatheisamemberoftheprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree. The Director determined that the record did not establish that the Petitioner is an individual of exceptional ability. Inourdenovareview,weagreewiththeDirectorthatthePetitionerhasnotestablishedthathe is an individual of exceptional ability and further conclude that the record does not support afinding that the Petitioner meets any of the six eligibility criteria.Exceptional ability not established
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) The Petitioner provided a Form ETA 750 Part B which stated that he studied physical education at the D Institute of Physical Culture from 1998 to 2002. The Petitioner also stated on the form that he Evidence in the form of letter(s)from currentorformer employer(s) showing that the alien has at leastten years offull-timeexperience in the occupationforwhich he or she is being sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. However, in our review of the record, we question the evidence in support of this criterion. First, it is unclear in which specific occupation the Petitionerclaimstohavetenyearsoffull-timeexperience. AlthoughhestatedontheForm1-140thathis occupation is as an athlete, the record indicates that the Petitioner's experience is also as a coach, a team In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998).
See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest wa iverto bed iscretionary in nature).
As the Director noted in the decision, this education does not appear to be related to the claimed area of exceptional ability as an athlete.
The record contains various certificates labeled "diploma," howeverthese documents were issued by athletic competition organizers and are not official academic records. studied law at the Tax and Legal Institute o~ ltrom 2003to 2005. for evidence (RFE) of his claimed education, the Petitioner did not provide any official academic record evidencing study at either of these institutions. The record does not show he has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to theareaofexceptionalabiIity.5 Accordingly,thePetitionerhasnotsatisfiedthiscriterion.
See Dhanasar, 261 &N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on thesethreeprongs.
Despite the Director's request p. 4 captain, and a referee. Next, we note that very few, if any, documents are from current or former employer(s). Further, none of the documents state that the experience the Petitioner gained was full-time. We reviewed the reference letter from the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports ofl Ias well as the reference letter from the Judo Federation o~ IAlthough the letters appear to be written by independent authors, they are both dated on the same day and both authors use identical structure and phrases to describe the Petitioner's history. The authors state that the Petitioner began the sports of sambo6 and judo at the age of six, that he became ajudo champion at age eighteen, and that he has since built his own judo sports club where he trains more than 200 children and teenagers. Here we note again that it is unclear whether the Petitioner's claimed experience comes from being a judo athlete or from being ajudo coach, among other roles.7 Although the Petitioner may have begun practicing the sport at the age of six, the record as a whole, and these letters in particular, do not suggest that the Petitioner performed this sport as an occupation when hewasachild. Evenoncehereachedtheageofeighteenandbeganwinningcompetitions,neitherthe recordnortheletterssubstantiateafindingthathegainedfuII-timeexperienceintheoccupation. For instance, the record contains insufficient evidence to conclude when, or even if, he became a professional athlete paid to compete in the sport as his full-time occupation. While we acknowledgethatthe Petitioner has been a long-standing participant in the sport, this alone does not satisfy the requirements of this criterion. Becausesportsmaybeplayedatanyageandwithvaryingdegreesoftimecommitmentand competition, it is insufficient simply to evidence his participation in the sport. The Petitioner must clearly define how his participation, and thus the experience he gained, constituted a full-time occupation. The record, as it currently stands, is not sufficient to satisfy th is 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 Petitioner did not submit evidence indicating that a license or certification is required to practice the profession or occupation of being an athlete. Although we reviewed the document labeled "international license" from the International Sambo Federation and the "Certificate No. 311" issued by the "Head of sports and tourism sector of the Youth affairs, sports and tourism Department ofl [" (capitalization errors in theoriginaO, neither of these documents containsadate of issuance and the record contains no explanation concerning the purpose of such documents. There is no indication that these documents are licenses to practice the profession or certifications f o r a particular profession or occupation. It seems that, at most, these documents could be construed as identification cards to access a particular athletic event or function. Th is conclusion is supported by the fact that Certificate No. 311 does not state what sport the certificate is for and it also contains instructions that it "shall be returned upon termination ofthefunction." Ifthisdocumentwerealicensetopracticetheprofessionorcertificationforaparticular professionoroccupation,wewouldnotexpectitexpireattheendofaparticulareventorfunction. In addition, we question the credibility of the document as it contains avalidity period through 2017. As the Petitioner was born in 1980, it appears incongruous that a youth affairs department wou Id issue him a document valid through to an age of thirty-seven.8 Notably, the record contains no corroborating evidence of the Petitioner's sports club, how manyyouths attend the club and have been trained, or when the Petitioner begrn the judo sports club.
At the time ofthis petition's filing, the Petitioner was over thirty-eight years old and the Certificate No. 311 was no longer valid. Samba is a martial art that originated in the former Soviet Union in the 1920s.
The record includes a copy of the Petitioner's International Judo Federation Official Identification Card, which does not contain an issuance date, and which expired in December 2016, prior to the filing ofthispetition. Therefore,thisisnotevidenceofalicenseorcertificationatthetimeoffiling. Even i f it had been valid at the time o f f iling, such evidence would still be insufficient, as the Petitioner has not explained how an identification card is a license or certification.
In general, the Petitioner appears to confuse the term "certificate" with the term "certification." The record contains numerous certificates of participation in athletic competitions, but these certificates of participation are not certifications for a particular profession or to practice the sport. For instance, although the Petitioner asserted that the titles "Master of Sport" and the "Honored Master of Sport'' are licenses, such titles are not provided to every athlete who participates in the sport and therefore they are not certifications for the profession. Based upon the information provided about the issuance of "Master of Sport" and "Honored Master of Sport" designations, these documents do not confer official permission to practice the profession or certify an athlete in a particular occupation as much as they are an acknowledgement that an athlete has reached a particular level in a sport.
Finally, the record contains a certificate from the International Olympic Committee acknowledging that in2005,thePetitionertookpartinanine-daytechnicalcourseforjudocoaches. Althoughthecertificate states that he "has taken part" in the course, the record does not contain evidence that the Petitioner finished the course, that he is qualified to be a judo coach as a result of this single course, or that any certification or license is required to be ajudo coach. As already stated, the Petitioner identified on the Form 1-140 that his occupation is as an athlete. Therefore, a technical course for judo coaching appears not to have any bearing on his ability to practice judo as an athlete.
Accordingly, the evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied this 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) The Petitioner did not submit evidence of his salary or other remuneration for services. Therefore, he has not satisfied th is criterion. Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) The Petitioner claimed that he has been a member of tha INational Judo Team since 1998 and that from 2003 until the present, he has served as the team leader. It is unclear from the record how the Petitioner maintains membership on thel INational Judo Team since he has relocated to the United States, or whether his membership continues in perpetuity. By contrast, the President of the National Judo Federation of thel Istated that the Petitioner became a member of the I INationalJudoTeamin2003andthatheservedasthecaptainfrom2003to2012. Notonlyis the record unclear on the difference between a team leader and a team captain, but the dates the Petitioner providedforhismembershipdifferfromthoseprovidedbythePresident. ThePetitionermustresolve theseinconsistencieswithindependent,objectiveevidencepointingtowherethetruthlies. MatterofHo, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit p. 6 Id. AsidefromtheinconsistentassertionsheandthePresidentmadeconcerninghismembership,the record contains little independent, objective evidence to corroborate the Petitioner's status as a member of the team.Inconsistencies in the record
In his letter, the President also explained the qualifications required to be a member of the team and in so doing, used regulatory language setting forth eligibility criteria for individuals of extraordinaryability. 9 The author stated thatthe Petitioner's achievements have been judged b y nationally and internationally recognized experts and that the Petitioner has won nationally and internationally recognized awards. Neither the letter nor the record contains credible and specific qualifications for becoming a member of the team, but instead includes a recitation of a portion of the criteria for another U.S. immigrant classification. CounselassertedthatthePetitioner'smembershipontheI ~NationalJudoTeam satisfies this criterion, however counsel also repeated the regulatory language for the extraordinary ability immigrant classification without identifying the specific achievements that enabled the Petitioner to qualify for the team. Taken together, we question the credibility of the statements made by both the President of the National Judo Federation and by counsel.
Inaddition,therecorddoesnotestablishthatthenationaljudoteamisaprofessionalassociation. Rather, the team appears more akin to an athletic club managed by a larger association. Counsel stated that the I INational Judo Federation is managed by thel IJudo Federation," which is a member of the International Judo Federation. 10 Counsel then concluded that "[t]herefore,I I Judo Federation is definitely a professional association" and that this is sufficient to establish the Petitioner's membership in thel IJudo Federation. However, the record contains statements that the Petitioner belongs to thel INational Judo Team, not that he is a member of thel IJudo Federation. Even if the statements concerning the Petitioner's membership on theI INational Judo Team were credible and consistent, this would not establish that the team is a professional association that would satisfy the Petitioner's eligibility under this criterion.
Returning to the Petitioner's expired International Judo Federation Official ldentification Card, as explained above regarding evidence related to a license or certification, this identification card is not evidence of membership at the time of filing.Claims not backed by documents Even if it had been valid at the time of filing, it would still be insufficient to satisfy eligibility under this criterion because the Petitioner has not explained how an identification card confers membership.
Accordingly, the evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. An individual of extraordinary ability is a different U.S. immigrant classification and is not the classification under which this petition was filed. Individuals of extraordinary ability must meet at least three of ten criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h), as opposed to three of six criteria for an individual of exceptional ability under8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1<). T h e P e t i t i o n e r p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d l o r a n d w a s d e n i e d c l a , l i ~at ; n a s a n i n d i v i d I t i o f e x t r a o r d i n a l ] / a b i l i b , 10 The President of the National Judo Federation of the Isa carifirmed that th~ INational Judo Federation is managed by National Judo Federation ofth I p. 7 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 Petitioner presented numerous certificates of participation, attendance, and victory in various athletic competitions. samba, al to compete. 11
These certificates do not establish achievement or contribution in the field of judo, Iwresting as much as they establish participation in sporting events and awillingness Aside from the evidence relating to the Olympics, a competition well known for having qualifying trials, much of the Petitioner's evidence of his performance in competitions is not accompanied by documentation that there were any required minimum qualifications for participation in the events. Nor does the record contain sufficient evidence to establish that these events were exclusive such that acceptance into them would signify a level of achievement or contribution in the The Petitioner emphasized his titles of "Master of Sport of International Class of thel I Ion Judo" and "Master of Sport of International Class of thel lo n l~ ~ Wrestling," both of which the record indicates he won in 2003, as well as his title of "Honored Master of Sportofthe~------~onJudo,"whichtherecordindicateshewonin2017. Theseawards are also loosely referred to in the record as "Master of Sport," "Master of Sport ofl I' and "Honored Master of Sport ofl I'
An undated letter from the President of thel IJudo Federation provided the various requirements for awarding the title of "Master of Sport ofl Iin judo," which are all based on ran kings after qualifying competitions. 14 In addition, the President stated in his letter that the "Master of Sport ofl I' is awarded in accordance with the "Order of the Ministry for Physical Culture andSportsofth~~~------~' Byc ntrast,thePetitionerassertedthatthe"titlesofMaster o f S p o r t o f l n t e r n a t i o n a l C l a s s i n j u d o a n 1W r e s t l i n g " a r e :
As previously explained, not all of the certificates clearly indicate athletic participation, as opposed to coaching or referee participation, or mere attendance.
I
[O]fficial titles issued b the Committee for Youth, sports and Tourism under the Government of th the official and the highest governing body of martial arts in ,____ _ _.to those athletes who have attained an exceptional level of mastery in their particular sport, as evidenced by success in major national or international tournaments. Inordertobeawarded"MasterofSpmtinJudoand IWrestling",a !wrestler must achieve one or more first-place finishes in national championships and receives a recommendation from t h Q w r e s t l i n g and Judo Federations.
(errors in the original). Here, the Petitioner's assertions differfromthe President's,both intermsofwho issuesthetitle,aswellaswhetherfirst-placeisrequiredtoqualify. Inexaminingthe2017awarditself, the issuing body is listed as the "Committee for Youth Affairs, Sports and Tourism under the Government o f thd t whereas the 2003 awards were issued by the "Committee o f Physical EducationandSportundertheGovernmentofthe~------~' Duetothevaryingtitles provided for the awards, the varying titles of the issuing bodies, along with the varying explanations for how an athlete qualifies for the title, we question the credibility of these awards overall. Furthermore, we conclude that even if this evidence was credible, it would not establish eligibilityunderthis criterion. The evidence remains insufficient to conclude that the titles are recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field. For instance, the record contains little evidence that the recognition for receiving such a title is an achievement for the field of judo, as opposed to a personal achievement. In other words, while the Petitioner may have received recognition for personal achievement as ajudo athlete, it is not apparent that the Petitioner has achieved anything for or contributed anything to the field of judo. Furthermore, the Petitioner has submitted little evidence to explain which specific competitions enabledhimtoreceivetheseawards. Moreover,wedonothaveinformationonthedifferencebetween the titles of "Master of Sport" and "Honored Master of Sport" or why he earned these awards fourteen yearsapartfromeachother. Finally,thePetitionerpresentedlittleevidenceshowingthattheseawards are recognized beyond the presenting institution or indicative of influence on the field as a whole.
Turning to the letters of recommendation, we observe that although the authors offered general praise concerning the Petitioner's talents and accomplishments, none of the letters persuasively establishes thatthePetitionerreceivedrecognitionforachievementsorsignificantlycontributedtothefield.Support letters generic or unsupported Most authors did not identify specific achievements or contributions, but instead repeated general phrases that he has won awards and competitions. One author described the Petitioner's judo coaching as extraordinary, but he did not provide specific examples or detail explaining why, nor did the author indicate that the Petitioner's coaching has contributed to the field o f judo, as opposed to only his individual coaching students. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific contributions or their 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 asto 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").
Other claims made by the authors of the letters call into question the credibility of the letters. For example, one author claimed that the Petitioner created a federation of judo in the city o~ I, a claim which is not substantiated by any evidence in the record. Another example is the letter from the Head Coach of a mixed martial arts gym, which contains a claim that the Petitioner is a highly p. 9 decoratedTaeKwonDospecialist. OtherpartsoftherecorddonotmentionthePetitionerasanathlete in Tae Kwon Do and we question the accuracy of this statement. In addition, this author used regulatory language setting forth eligibility criteria for individuals of extraordinary ability, which involves a different analysis from that which is used for individuals of exceptional ability, and which isnottheclassificationunderwhichthispetitionwasfiled. Theletterdoesnotappeartocontainthe independent opinion of the author, but instead includesa recitation of the criteria for another immigrant classification. We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter ofCaron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Cornrn'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to acceptor may give less weight to that evidence. Id. Here, the letters are of diminished probative value due to insufficient explanations and evidence to support the authors' conclusions as well as the unsupported recitation of regulations concerning a different immigrant classification.
The Petitioner also submitted copies of published articles about judo competitions, some of which reference him and multiple other competitors. Although several news articles and one radio broadcast reference him, the reports largely focus on the athletic event as a whole, rather than focusing on the Petitioner specifically or exclusively. As the Director noted, the readership and reach of these publicationshasnotbeenestablishedoutsideoftheirownself-reportedstatements. Furthermore,the apparent inaccurate reporting in al " Inewspaper concerning the Petitioner's victory in a competition in Florida undermines the credibility of the publications as a whole. Based upon the evidence of record, it has not been established that the Petitioner is recognized for achievements or contributions in his industry as a result of this publicity.
For all these reasons, the evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. Summary
The record does not support the finding that the Petitioner has met any of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii).15 Therefore, the Petitioner has not established eligibility as an individual of exceptional abi Iity under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. As previously outlined, the Petitioner must show that he is either an advanced degree professional or possesses exceptional ability before we reach the question of the national interest waiver. The Petitioner has not shown that he meets the regulatory criteria for classification as an individual of exceptional ability and he has not asserted that he is an advanced degree professional. Accordingly, the issue of the national interest waiverismoot.16 Thewaiverisavailableonlytoforeignworkerswhootherwisequalifyforclassification under section 203(b)(2){A) of the Act. Because the documentation in the record does not establish When a petitioner has satisfied at least three of the six criteria, a final merits determination concerning the Petitioner's eligibility is still required perthetwo-partadjudication framework established in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 {9th Cir. 2010). Inthefinalmeritsanalysis,thequalityoftheevidencemustbeevaluated. Here,afinalmeritsanalysisisnotrequired because the Petitioner has not established that he has met at leastthreeof the six criteria.
Because the identified reasons ford ismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the arguments regarding eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings onissuesthe decision of which is unnecessary totheresults they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). p. 10 eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, further analysis of eligibility under the framework outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose.
Ill. CONCLUSION
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 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.