dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 26400001 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 07, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and/or an individual of 
exceptional ability, 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner was eligible as an individual of exceptional ability. In addition , the 
Director determined that the Petitioner was not eligible for, and did not otherwise merit, a national 
interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&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. 
I. LAW 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree . A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences , arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence . 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) . 1 Meeting 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation , a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii) . 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 3, grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Eligibility for the EB-2 classification 
The Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor is to work as a general and operations manager, and 
submitted business plans for two different companies ( a soccer club initially, then an events production 
business) that he proposes to found and direct as an entrepreneur. In his initial filing, he indicated that 
he was petitioning as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability, 
but focused solely on the latter when responding to the Director's notice of intent to deny (NOID). 
Accordingly the Director analyzed the criteria and overall standard relating to the Petitioner's claim 
of exceptional ability in his decision, concluding that the standard was not met. On appeal, he states 
that he seeks to be classified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but he does 
not offer additional arguments in support of his eligibility. We note that, as the Director stated in his 
NOID, the Petitioner did not establish that he possessed a foreign degree equivalent to a bachelor's 
degree from a college or university in the United States, and therefore could not qualify as an advanced 
degree professional regardless of his experience in his field of endeavor. Further, the Petitioner does 
not challenge the Director's conclusion that he is not eligible as an individual of exceptional ability. 
In general, we will not address issues that were not raised with specificity on appeal. The Petitioner 
did not contest the findings of the Director regarding his eligibility for the EB-2 classification or offer 
additional arguments in his appeal brief We will therefore consider this issue to be waived. See, e.g., 
Matter of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n. 2 (BIA 2009). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
3 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionmy in nature). 
2 
B. National Interest Waiver 
As the Petitioner has not contested the Director's decision that he is not eligible for the EB-2 
classification, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We therefore need not determine 
whether he meets the three prongs under the Dhanasar analytical framework, or whether he merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Nevertheless, we will briefly note that in asserting 
his qualification under the first prong on appeal, the Petitioner refers to himself as a respected leader 
and focuses solely on his work experience and skills as a business manager. However, the first prong, 
substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual 
proposes to undertake, not the individual themselves. Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner's 
arguments focusing on his skills and experience would be more appropriate in the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, where we consider whether an individual is well placed to advance their 
endeavor. As the Petitioner has not sufficiently challenged the Director's decision regarding the first 
prong, he would not be eligible for a national interest waiver even if he had established his eligibility 
for the EB-2 classification, and we need not consider whether he meets the second and third prongs. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner does not challenge the Director's adverse decision regarding his eligibility for the EB-
2 classification, and this issue is therefore considered waived. Because he has not established his 
eligibility for this underlying classification, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. The 
petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3