remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 10, 2024 In Re: 30627619 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an accounting professional, seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability 
in the sciences, arts or business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish 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 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 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. 
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 national 
interest waiver pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 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. UNDERLYING EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
The Petitioner claims to qualify for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. A 
petitioner seeking classification as an individual of exceptional ability must present documentation 
that satisfies at least three of the six categories of initial evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
However, meeting the minimum requirement by providing at least three types of initial evidence does 
not, in itself, establish that the Petitioner meets the requirements for exceptional ability classification. 
In the second part of the analysis, officers should evaluate the evidence together when considering the 
petition in its entirety for the final merits determination. The officer must determine whether or not 
the Petitioner, by a preponderance of the evidence, has demonstrated that they have a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met five of the six criteria related to establishing exceptional 
ability. 2 The Director, however, did not conduct a final merits determination and therefore did not 
make a finding as to whether the Petitioner established that he is an individual of exceptional ability 
and thus eligible for EB-2 classification as a threshold issue for this category. We also note that the 
Director did not discuss the evidence in the record and how the evidence establishes that the Petitioner 
meets each of the criteria. Instead, the Director only stated the conclusion that these criteria were met. 
As noted above, meeting the minimum requirements by providing at least three types of initial 
evidence is not sufficient to establish that the Petitioner is an individual of exceptional ability, but 
instead is only the first step. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(8)(2). The second 
step of the process is based on a comprehensive qualitative analysis of the evidence. On remand, the 
Director should first analyze whether the evidence in the record establishes at least three of the 
regulatory criteria related to exceptional ability and, if necessary, fully explain how the evidence in 
the record does or does not establish each criterion. If the evidence does establish at least three of the 
criteria, the Director should then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that the Petitioner is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above 
that ordinarily encountered in the field and would, as a result, meet the exceptional ability standard as 
a threshold issue prior to considering eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
1 See also Flores v. Garland. 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 The Director's decision did not render a determination as to whether the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional 
ability, but rather concluded in the request for evidence (RFE) that because the Petitioner satisfied five of the six criteria, 
he "provided sufficient proof to establish that he qualifies for the [EB-2] classification." 
2 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
As to the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not satisfy any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. On appeal, 
the Petitioner contends that the Director ignored substantial evidence submitted in support of his 
petition and as a result did not reach a proper conclusion in denying his national interest waiver request. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow a petitioner a fair 
opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a 
decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner's 
assertion that the Director's decision does not properly analyze the evidence submitted or explain the 
reasons for denial. 
Regarding the substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Director 
concluded that the endeavor had neither but did not provide an analysis or explain the reasoning behind 
this conclusion aside from stating that the Petitioner's statement was insufficient. We note, however, 
that in addition to his personal statement, the Petitioner submitted a copy of his professional plan, an 
expert opinion letter, letters of recommendation, and other documentary evidence in support of his 
eligibility under the first prong. The Director should analyze the evidence to determine whether the 
record sufficiently demonstrates the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. The 
endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, or education. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at 
F.5(D)(l). In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its 
potential prospective impact. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director should focus on what 
the Petitioner will be doing rather than the specific occupation. An endeavor having significant 
potential on the broader implications for a field or region generally may rise to the level of having 
national importance for the purpose of establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(l). The Director should review the record to 
determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated his proposed endeavor has significant potential on 
the broader impact in the field. 
If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet the substantial merit or 
national importance requirements of Dhanasar 's first prong, the decision should discuss the 
insufficiencies in the evidence and adequately explain the reasons for ineligibility. 
For Dhanasar's second prong, the Director concluded that the Petitioner was not well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor, but did not sufficiently explain the basis for the determination. On 
appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director ignored evidence of his academic qualification, 
professional achievements, and years of experience in the field, and reiterates his qualifications and 
commitment to advance his proposed endeavor. Although the Director listed the types of documents 
submitted by the Petitioner and generally concluded that they were insufficient, the decision does not 
analyze this evidence or explain why such evidence was deficient. 
3 
Again, an officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a petition in order to allow a petitioner a 
fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786. Here, the Director's decision 
did not adequately address the evidence submitted with the petition or in response to the RFE. 
The Director should analyze the evidence to determine if the Petitioner is well positioned to advance 
the proposed endeavor, and should consider all of the evidence offered for prong two, including the 
Petitioner's academic record, certifications and trainings, expert opinion letter, and letters of support 
and recommendation. The Director should analyze the specific content of the record to determine if 
this documentation renders the Petitioner well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. If the 
Director concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet Dhanasar 's second prong, the 
decision should discuss the insufficiencies in the evidence and adequately explain the reasons for 
ineligibility. 
As to the third prong of Dhanasar, the Director again concluded that the Petitioner's statement was 
insufficient because it was not accompanied by any evidence. The Director concluded that "the 
evidence submitted does not support the Petitioner's statements that, on balance, it would be beneficial 
to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification." 
Although the Director stated the law and the relevant considerations in performing the third prong's 
balancing analysis, the Director did not discuss the evidence weighed in balancing those 
considerations. Without a proper evaluation of the factors identified in Dhanasar 's third prong, the 
Director's determination for this prong was in error. If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's 
documentation does not meet this prong, the decision should address the Petitioner's arguments and 
evidence, and explain the relative decisional weight given to each balancing factor. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, we are remanding the petition for the Director to consider whether the Petitioner has 
satisfied the eligibility requirements for the underlying EB-2 classification. In addition, the Director 
should properly apply all three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework to determine if the 
Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. The Director may request any additional evidence considered 
pertinent to the new determination. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution 
of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4