The Petitioner, a public safety officer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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 Petitioner did not qualify for the underlying EB-2 classification and had not established that 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 ofproofto demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
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. Because this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest.
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework:
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or p. 2 who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare ofthe United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. . . . [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer in the United States.
Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, 8 USC § l 10l(a)(32), provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries."
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions:
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree.
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business.
Profession means one ofthe occupations listed in section 10l(a)(32) ofthe Act, as well as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation.
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii).
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter ofNew York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT).
Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has p. 3 may, as matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner alleges on appeal that the Director "did not apply the proper standard of proof in this case, instead imposing a stricter standard . . . to [his] detriment." Except where a different standard is specified by law, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing immigration benefit requests. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375; see also Matter ofMartinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter ofSao Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151, 152 (BIA 1965). Accordingly, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing national interest waiver pet1t10ns. See generally l USCIS Policy Manual E.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While the Petitioner asserts on appeal that he has provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate his eligibility for the EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver, he does not further explain or identify any specific instance in which the Director applied a standard of proof other than the preponderance of evidence in denying the petition.
As stated above, the first step to establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver is demonstrating qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or anindividualofexceptionalability. Indenyingthepetition,theDirectorconcludedthatthePetitioner On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he qualifies "with an equivalent of U.S. advanced degree or at least three (3) of the six (6) exceptional ability criteria," but does not identify specific errors on the partoftheDirector. ThePetitionerprovidesnoevidenceorargumentsaddressingtheconcernsofthe Director regarding his eligibility for the underlying classification.
When dismissing an appeal, we generally do not address issues that are not raised with specificity on appeal. Here, the Petitioner does not challenge the Director's determination that he does not qualify for the requested EB-2 classification as either an advanced degree professional or as an individual of exceptional ability. Therefore, we consider these issues abandoned. 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).
As explained in the legal framework above, 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. Because the Petitioner abandoned a threshold issue, the remainder ofthe Petitioner's arguments need not See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
The Director's decision, which was 31 pages in length, provided approximately 10 pages of detailed analysis devoted solely to the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification. beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements ofajob offer and thus ofa labor certification.
Analysis
did not meet EB-2 classification eligibility through either avenue.
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. p. 4 be addressed. dispositive of the appeal. Therefore, we decline to reach but hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning the Petitioner's eligibility under the Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive ofthe appeal); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not established that he satisfies the regulatory requirements for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional or as an individual of exceptional ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
It is unnecessary to analyze any remaining independent grounds when another is Even ifwe had addressed the remaining issues and arguments, we still would have dismissed this appeal. The Petitioner's evidence and arguments do not establish that he is eligible under any ofthe three Dhanasar prongs.