The Petitioner, an international legal 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 that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i).
The Director of the Texas Service Center revoked the approval of the petition, 1 concluding that although the record establishes the Petitioner's eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, she did not establish her eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. Specifically, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that the prospective benefit of her proposed employment would be national in scope and would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree compared to available United States workers having the same minimum qualifications. As such, the Director concluded that the petition had been approved in error. 2 The matter is now before us on appeal. 3 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 53 7, 53 7 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits evidence and provides a statement on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, in which she makes several allegations of error on the part of the Director and maintains that the approval of her petition was revoked without good and sufficient cause. Several of these allegations are not supported by the record. For example, she contends that Director made procedural errors because the revocation decision "did not follow" our remand decision issued in December 2021 and "went beyond what is stated in the [Notice oflntent to Revoke (NOIR)]." The record reflects that we instructed the Director to re-adjudicate the petition under the NYSDOT framework and the Director did so. The Petitioner has not articulated how the Director failed to follow our instructions on remand or elaborated on her claim that the Director raised issues in the revocation without providing notice in the NOIR. The record indicates that the Petitioner had notice of the proposed grounds for revocation and an adequate opportunity for rebuttal.
The Petitioner further claims that the Director "wrongly indicated" that she submitted a late response to the NOIR, but the revocation decision expressly states her response was "considered as timely received." Additionally, she contends that the Director did not judge her case "by its own merits" because no consideration was given to her previously approved labor certification and her long-time maintenance oflawful status in the United States. However, the Director acknowledged and discussed these facts in the revocation decision and correctly determined that they are not relevant in evaluating the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver under the NYSDOT framework, which focuses on the prospective benefit of her proposed employment and whether it would be national in scope and serve the national interest.
The Petitioner also maintains that the Director did not consider all evidence submitted in response to the NOIR, specifically referring to her submission of 25 supporting letters, which are resubmitted on appeal. While the Director did not specifically address each letter, the decision states that evidence not discussed was nevertheless reviewed and considered. We note the letters from the Petitioner's employers, colleagues and former professors were similar in substance, and the Director was not obligated to provide a separate analysis of each one. It is a well-established principle that "a presumption of regularity attaches to the actions of Government agencies" absent clear evidence to the contrary. See US. Postal Serv. v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1, 10 (2001) (citing United States v. Chem. Found., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926)); see also Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973,976 (1st Cir. 1992) (finding that the Board of Immigration Appeals is not required to specifically address each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence presented); Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th Cir.
1984) ("[The Board oflmmigration Appeals] has no duty to write an exegesis on every contention").
Upon review of the record, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision. 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 appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case).
As noted, the Petitioner must establish that her proposed employment is national in scope and would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree compared to available U.S. workers. Under NYSDOT, a petitioner must establish that their past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest; the framework calls for a history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. 22 I&N Dec. at 219.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's The Director noted, and we agree, that the Petitioner's statements, and the supporting letters ofher employers, colleagues, and former professors, describe her academic performance, employment history, her background as a licensed attorney in both the United States and her native Turkey, and her specific skills as an international legal consultant. However, the evidence does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's work to date has been national in scope by extending beyond her employers and their clients, or how it has resulted in demonstrable achievements in the field or been particularly influential in the field.No broader implications shown While she is clearly wellregarded by her peers for her professional skills and personal attributes and has an unusual background compared to some U.S. attorneys based on her previous legal education and experience in Turkey, such background alone does not inherently meet the national interest threshold and does not demonstrate the substantial prospective national benefit of her employment.
The Petitioner's appeal does not address or contest the specific deficiencies the Director found in applying the NYSDOT framework to the facts presented, and therefore does not overcome the Director's thorough and well-reasoned determination that she did not establish her eligibility for a national interest waiver. Accordingly, we affirm the Director's decision to revoke the approval of the petition.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.