The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and an individual of exceptional ability, 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. § 1153(b)(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish: (1) the Petitioner qualified for the EB-2 classification; (2) the national importance of the proposed endeavor; or (3) that it would be in the United States' interest to waive the requirement of a labor certification. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Legal Framework
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. 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 ofprogressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree.
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 p. 2 that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F).1 Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 We will then conduct a final merits determination to decide 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 l&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 discretion3
, 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.
Analysis
After the initial filing of the petition, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) to the Petitioner. In the RFE, the Director explained that the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying classification either as an advanced degree professional or as an individual of exceptional ability. Regarding eligibility as an advanced degree professional, the Director stated: [T]he petitioner provided insufficient evidence to establish that he is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. In this case, the [academic credential] evaluator assessed that the petitioner obtained a Bachelor's in Business Administration based on the "3-for-1 Rule" which combines 15 years of the petitioner's claimed work experience and his high school diploma to equate to a bachelor's degree. A United States baccalaureate degree is generally found to require four years of education.
Three-year degrees, even in conjunction with one year of experience, do not equal a U.S. bachelor's degree except under exceptional circumstances. Matter of Shah, 17 l&N Dec. 244 (Reg. Comm. 1977).
Although the Petitioner responded to the RFE, the Director denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification and two of the three Dhanasar prongs. Regarding the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, the 1 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).
Director concluded the Petitioner had not met at least three of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii).
On appeal, the Petitioner provides no evidence or arguments addressing the concerns of the Director regarding his eligibility for the underlying classification.4 Therefore, we consider this issue abandoned. See Matter of R-A-M-. 25 l&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'v Gen., 401 F.3d 1226. 1228 n. 2 (11th 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 *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims were abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO).
As explained 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. Because the Petitioner abandoned a threshold issue, the remainder of the Petitioner's arguments need not be addressed. It is unnecessary to analyze any remaining independent grounds when another is dispositive of the appeal. Therefore, we decline to reach but hereby reserve arguments concerning 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 of the appeal); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not established that he qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification, he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.