dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 12, 2024 In Re: 30002683 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification, 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. 
§ l l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification or that the Petitioner was eligible for the 
requested national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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. 53 7, 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.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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. On appeal, 
the Petitioner solely addresses his eligibility for a national interest waiver, acknowledging that "the 
Service agrees that the Appellant does not qualify as an alien of exceptional ability." 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 of O-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 his eligibility 
for second preference immigrant classification. 
As this issue is dispositive, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding his qualification for a national interest waiver. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
1 The Director discussed the deficiencies in the evidence submitted to establish the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual 
of exceptional ability and concluded that he only met one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). On appeal, 
the Petitioner does not identify a single erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact in the Director 's decision regarding 
the underlying classification . See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) . 
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 ofL-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