remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 6, 2024 In Re: 29095291 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an accounting specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for 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 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility for the underlying 
EB-2 visa classification, as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
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). 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
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). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCJS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5 . 
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 for EB-2 classification, 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of 
discretion, 3 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. The 
Director concluded in the request for evidence that the Petitioner did not meet three out of the six 
required criteria and stated that additional documentation was needed. However, the Director did not: 
specify which criteria were not met, explain why the evidence in the record did not meet the criteria, 
or discuss what additional documentation should be submitted. On remand, the Director should 
evaluate the Petitioner's evidence and determine if she has met at least three of the above criteria. If 
the Petitioner is found to meet at least three criteria, the Director must then conduct a final merits 
determination and review the evidence in its totality to determine if she has established she possesses 
a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in her field. See generally, 6 
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (describing the two-step 
evidential review process used in determinations for exceptional ability petitions). 
B. National Interest Waiver 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision does not explain the specific reasons for 
denial. We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the decision is deficient. An officer 
must fully 
explain the reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i). Furthermore, a decision 
denying a benefit must include the specific reasons for denial and sufficiently explain the underlying 
deficiencies to allow a petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an 
opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) 
(finding that the reasons for denying a motion must be clear to allow the affected party a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Here, the decision did not meet these 
requirements. 
3 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). 
2 
The Director stated that the occupation of accounting specialist and the general work of the occupation 
are not specific enough to be considered an endeavor and, "[ d]ue to the non-specificity of the 
petitioner's proposed endeavor we were unable to determine that the foreign national is well positioned 
to advance the proposed endeavor." The Director then concluded "[f]or the same reason, USCIS is 
unable to determine whether or not, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive 
the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification." The Director next discussed how 
substantial merit and national importance are determined under the Dhanasar framework and 
concluded that the Petitioner did not meet this standard. The Director generally listed the evidence in 
the record but did not analyze the documents or sufficiently explain why the evidence did not establish 
eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner contends on appeal that she has provided 
an endeavor and that the personal statement offers detailed information on her proposed work in the 
United States. The Petitioner also asserts that the Director stated she did not meet the qualifications 
for a national interest waiver without discussion of why they determined the evidence was deficient. 
We agree with the Petitioner that the decision did not provide an analysis of the evidence or sufficiently 
explain why the evidence in the record was deficient. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the above reasons, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for further 
consideration and entry of a new decision. On remand, the Director should review the entire record, 
including the Petitioner's appeal, and determine whether she has established eligibility for both the 
underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability and each of the three prongs of 
the Dhanasar framework. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to 
the determination prior to issuing a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3