The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as an individual ofexceptional 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not established that he was individual of exceptional ability or that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal. The matter is again before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. Onmotion,thePetitionersubmitsabriefandadditionalevidence.
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reopen.
Law
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record ofproceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit.
Analysis
As an initial matter, the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the prior adverse decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(l )(i). Accordingly, we examine any new facts and arguments to the extent that they pertain to our prior dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal.
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.
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had met the criteria at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) and we agreed. On appeal, the Petitioner asserted that he also met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). We informed the Petitioner that, because he did not address the remaining criteria, we considered them abandoned. See Matter o fR-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. U.S. Att'v Gen., 401 F.3d 1226. 1228 n. 2 (111h Cir. 2005). citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claimswereabandonedashefailedtoraisethemonappealtotheAAO). Asaresult,welimitedour review to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D), which requires "[e]videncethat the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability."
In our prior decision, we discussed the deficiencies in the submitted documentation and explained that to satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the Petitioner has commanded a salary or remuneration for services that is indicative of his claimed exceptional ability relative to others working in the field, not to the United States generally. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. We ultimately concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his remuneration is a result o f his exceptional ability, rather than thel I On motion, the Petitioner generally alleges that because we did not find that the Petitioner met at least four of the six criteria, it was an "error of law."Exceptional ability not established However, the Petitioner does not address our conclusion that, because he only asse1ied that he met the remuneration criterion on appeal, the The Petitioner also ~rovides a new letter from the chief security advisor at I , ~ ~landupdatedinformationconcerninghistotalcompensation. The letter indicates that:
[T]o be hired [] at even an entry level post, [a candidate] must possess outstanding credentials and have proven experience in the following areas: extensive police or military background with proven investigative skills and accomplishments; evidence of at least 10 years prior experience and accomplishments .... [The] position is a very demanding and dangerous one and 1 For example, as we explained, the informationfroJ Iindicated that "[t]he level of pay forstaffin the Professionalandhigherca tegories that are recruited internationally is set by reference to the highest paying national civil service" and that "[t]he base salary, which is determined by the grade of the post specified in the job opening and the existence of any dependents, is the same throughout! Isystem." We also noted that the Petitioner provided information regarding other position categories, but not for his own.
As the remaining criteria were abandoned, we will limit our discussion to the evidence submitted in support of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k:)(3)(ii)(D). standardized pay scale for his position and time in grade.
Regardless, the Petitioner has not established that our remaining criteria were considered abandoned. decision was (1) based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy, and (2) incorrect based on the evidence in the record ofproceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). p. 3 the high compensation he receives is definitely reflective ofthe demands ofthis job, but [also] of his abilities to do the job. None of the submitted evidence, however, sufficiently establishes that the Petitioner's remuneration is based on his exceptional ability instead of his employer's standardized pay scale. Without more, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has met this criterion.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not submitted new evidence sufficient to establish that he meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). Therefore, he has not met the requirements for a motion to reopen. Furthermore, he has not established that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of laworpolicy. Asaresult,hehasnotmettherequirementsforamotiontoreconsider.
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.