dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
In Re: 26960924 Date : MAY 25, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or 
business. 1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(2) . The 
Petitioner also seeks 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 Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for 1) the underlying classification and 2) the requested 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christa'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 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, under section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
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). 2 Meeting 
1 The Petitioner initially claimed that he is an individual of exceptional ability. In response to the Director 's notice of 
intent to deny (NOID), he asserted that he qualifies as an advanced degree professional. 
2 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. 3 
We will then conduct a final merits determination to determine 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 4, 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. 
Contrary to counsel's statement on appeal, the Director did not determine that the Petitioner is an 
advanced degree professional. Rather, the Director discussed the submitted evidence and explained 
why the Petitioner did not establish that he qualifies for the underlying classification as either an 
advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. 5 
Because the Petitioner does not contest the Director's conclusion that he does not qualify for the 
underlying EB-2 classification, we deem this issue to be waived. See Matter ofR-A-M, 25 I&N Dec. 
657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue addressed in an 
adverse decision, that issue is waived); see also Sepulveda v. US. Att y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n. 
2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. 
Sept. 30, 2011) (finding the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to 
the AAO); Desravines v. US. Atty. Gen., 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009) (indicating that a 
passing reference in the arguments section of a brief without substantive arguments is insufficient to 
raise that ground on appeal). When an appellant fails to properly challenge one or more of the grounds 
3 USCTS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-palt adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. See generally, 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
4 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
5 The evaluation submitted in response to the Director's NOID does not establish (or even claim) that the Petitioner is an 
advanced degree professional. Rather, the evaluator determined that the combination of the Petitioner's technologist 
diploma in logistics and his professional experience is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in logistics. As the 
Petitioner's diploma is not the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, we cannot conclude that he meets the 
definition of advanced degree professional at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Compare 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) (defining 
for purposes of a nonimmigrant visa classification, the "equivalence to completion of a United States baccalaureate or 
higher degree.") Where combinations of education or experience may equate to baccalaureate degrees, the Act and 
regulations state so explicitly. Sec section 214(i)(2)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l l 84(i)(2)(C) (allowing H-IB workers to 
have "experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such [bachelor's] degree"); see also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)( 4) (stating H- IB workers may have "education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible 
experience that is equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate ... degree"). The regulations pertaining to the 
immigrant classification sought in this matter do not contain similar language. 
2 
upon which the Director based their conclusion, the filing party has abandoned any challenge of that 
ground or grounds, and it follows that the adverse determination will be affirmed. See Sapuppo v. 
Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Cooper, No. 17-
11548, 2019 WL 2414405, at *3 (11th Cir. June 10, 2019). 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for the underlying classification, we need not 
consider whether he merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest" 
and, therefore, reserve the issue. See INSv. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reach"); 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 an applicant has not otherwise met their burden of proof). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3