remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Auditing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 03, 2024 
In Re: 34868647 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an auditor, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an advanced degree professional as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this classification. 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 Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. The matter is now 
before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by apreponderance 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 of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we wi 11 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 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. 
Id. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for classification as an advanced degree 
professional and that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, the Director concluded 
that the Petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance, that she is 
well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor, or that waiving the job offer requirement would 
benefit the United States. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake and its ''potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. The 
endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. The term ''endeavor" is more 
specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation 
normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that 
occupation. For example, while engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed 
endeavor should describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the 
person will work, rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
Although the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of 
national importance, the Director did not apply any factors to the Petitioner's evidence or explain why 
the evidence was insufficient to establish eligibility under this prong. Specifically, the Director stated 
that "the petitioner submitted multiple articles, studies, and reports for the national importance prong. 
The articles, studies, and reports provided the latest trends regarding the field of Accounting and its 
national importance in the United States." The Director immediately followed this with a conclusion, 
"[h]owever, the submitted evidence does not demonstrate that the beneficiary's proposed endeavor 
has national importance as there is no significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area. Accordingly, 
the petitioner's proposed work does not meet the national importance part of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework." Here, the Director did not adequately explain how the evidence in the record led 
to the determination that the Petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. However, the Director must explain in writing the specific reasons for the decision. C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(i).2 The Director should also analyze the evidence and conclude whether the Petitioner's 
endeavor has national importance. As noted above, Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may 
have national importance, as required by the first prong, having "national or even global implications 
within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or 
medical advances" and endeavors that have broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area." Id. at 889-90. 
2 See also Matter of M-P-, 20 l&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). 
2 
B. Whether the Petitioner Is Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
In addressing this prong of the framework under Matter of Dhanasar, the Director noted that the Petitioner 
submitted a letter of interest from an employer, peer-reviewed articles, and "evidence that she reveiwed 
manuscripts for various journals." The Director concluded that the letter of interest lacked detail 
"indicating that the beneficiary is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor by accepting the job 
offers;" the articles did not "demonstrate that other researchers have followed, adopted, and implemented 
her work;" and "the petitioner does not explain how reviewing manuscripts for various journals 
demonstrates she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor." However, as noted by the 
Petitioner on appeal, the Director did not address a large portion of the submitted evidence, including an 
expert opinion and letters of support "attesting that the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the propsed 
endeavor." On remand, the Director should address all the Petitioner's arguments and evidence, and 
explain the relative decisional weight given to each balancing factor. 
C. Whether, on Balance, Waiving the Job Offer Requirement Would Benefit the United States 
As to the third prong of Dhanasar, the Director concluded that "the record does not demonstrate the 
widespread benefits associated with the beneficiary's working as an Auditor in the field of accounting. 
In addition, the record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary's proposed endeavor may lead to the 
creation of jobs. The record does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary's 
proposed endeavor would be beneficial to the Unted States. Also, the petitioner fails to submit evidence 
that their knowledge or skills are not easily articulated in a labor certification." However, the Director 
did not discuss the evidence that was considered in balancing these considerations nor address the 
Petitioner's specific claims as to the third prong. In addition, "[e]vidence that the endeavor has the 
potential to create a significant economic impact may be favorable but is not required, as an endeavor's 
merit may be established without immediate or quantifiable economic impact. For example, endeavors 
related to research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge may qualify, whether or not 
the potential accomplishments in those fields are likely to translate into economic benefits for the United 
States." Matter of Dhanasar at 889. 
111. CONCLUSION 
For the above reasons, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further 
consideration. On remand, the Director should review and fully analyze the entire record in 
considering whether the Petitioner has established eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. If 
appropriate, on remand the Director may issue a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny. 
The Director must then issue a new decision, addressing all the relevant evidence to decide the merits 
of the Petitioner's claim of eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3