dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Not Specified

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 19, 2024 In Re: 30146908 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as well as 
a national interest waiver (NIW) of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the Petitioner merits a discretionary waiver of 
the job offer requirement in the national interest. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of 
the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (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 summarily dismiss the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for an NIW, 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. 
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 NIW 
petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, grant an NIW 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. 
The purely discretionary determination of whether to grant or deny an NIW rests solely with USCIS. 
See Flores v. Garland , 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining four U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals in 
concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny an NIW to be discretionary in nature). 
The Director avoided making a determination on the Petitioner's eligibility under the relevant EB-2 
provisions. The Director also determined that the Petitioner met both elements of the first prong, but 
did not offer analysis related to either element. The Director denied the petition under Dhanasar 's 
second prong, and the decision was brief on this issue. The Director listed some of the materials the 
Petitioner relies upon under this prong, then noted that much of it came into existence after the 
Petitioner filed the petition. The Director correctly noted the Petitioner must demonstrate he is eligible 
on the date he filed the petition and this evidence could not be used to support this petition. This may 
explain why the Petitioner has filed a new NIW petition that remains pending. We note the Petitioner's 
appeal brief is unresponsive to the evidentiary shortcoming included as the sole basis for the Director's 
adverse decision. 
The reason for filing an appeal is to provide an affected party with the means to remedy what they perceive 
as an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact within a decision in a previous proceeding. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Without such an error specifically identified within the appeal, the affected 
party has not identified the basis for the filing. If the Petitioner does not explain the specific aspects of 
the decision that he considers to be incorrect, he has failed to meaningfully identify the reasons for taking 
an appeal. In order to review the appeal, it would therefore be necessary to search through the record and 
speculate on what possible errors the Petitioner asserts. Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354, 355 (BIA 
1986). 
Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently identified a basis for the appeal. As the Petitioner failed to 
challenge the Director's analysis in the final decision, we must summarily dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
2