dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 20, 2023 In Re: 28963261 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an administrative manager and operations general manager, seeks second preference 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an 
individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this EB-2 classification. 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification and a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 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 ofChawathe , 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. 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must also 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. On appeal, 
the Petitioner's brief solely argues her eligibility for a national interest waiver. The brief does not 
address or contest the Director's specific findings regarding the underlying EB-2 visa classification. 1 
Accordingly, we deem this ground to be waived. An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., 
Matter ofO-R-E, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 
658 n.2 (BIA 2012). Therefore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate her eligibility for second preference 
immigrant classification. 
1 The Director addressed the Petitioner 's claimed eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
and as an individual of exceptional ability. Although she presents a previously submitted education evaluation letter, the 
Director sufficiently discussed why the letter did not establish the Petitioner 's qualification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. Furthermore, the Petitioner does not explain how the evidence shows an erroneous conclusion 
of law or statement of fact in the Director 's decision for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(v) . 
Moreover, we need not reach, and therefore reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding her 
qualification for a 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 of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to 
reach alternative issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2