remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Automotive

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 05, 2024 In Re: 34834854 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an automotive manager and entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional or individual of exceptional 
ability, as well as a discretionary 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 that the evidence did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification, and the record did not 
show he warrants a national interest waiver because he did not satisfy any of the requisite three prongs 
as set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). This matter is before us on 
appeal, which we review de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
The Petitioner must establish his eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 
25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). On appeal, he reasserts that he qualifies for the EB-2 
classification based on exceptional ability and he has met all three Dhanasar prongs, and resubmits 
related documents. He also avers that the denial lacks proper analyses and he was deprived of a fair 
opportunity to address the evidentiary deficiencies as to his classification eligibility and the claimed 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. 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. 
To be eligible for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first establish eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 visa classification, as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional 
ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(A), (B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(l). 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they warrant a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889, provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions, which states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner 
establishes that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
(2) they are well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, waiving the job 
offer and thus labor certification requirements would benefit the United States. Id. 
1 See, e.g. , Brasil v. DHS, 28 F.4th 1189 (11th Cir. 2022) (concluding that the national interest waiver determination is 
nonreviewable and discretionary in nature). 
The Petitioner explicitly sought EB-2 classification based on exceptional ability, which requires him 
to first satisfy at least three of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and then demonstrate, under 
a final merits evaluation, that he possesses a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(2) ( defining "exceptional ability"); 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 
( discussing a two-part framework for determining exceptional ability). The Petitioner provided below 
detailed assertions and specific documentary evidence for his request for the EB-2 classification based 
on exceptional ability as well as voluminous documents in support of his claim that he also warrants 
a discretionary national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework and its requisite three prongs. 
Although he did not seek the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, the 
Director nonetheless issued a request for evidence (RFE) requesting, among other things, additional 
evidence that the Petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 2 In response 
to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted additional documents and again reiterated that he is seeking to 
classify himself as an individual of exceptional ability and that he warrants a national interest waiver. 
The Director ultimately denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner's evidence did not establish 
that he qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification and the record did not show that he warrants a 
national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. But it is unclear whether the Director denied 
the Petitioner's request for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability. Other than conclusively stating that "[t]he educational and exceptional ability 
qualifications for the classification has not been met" ( and merely referencing statements from the 
counsel's brief below), the Director did not provide any relevant analysis or findings related to the 
Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification as he requested and as required under the regulations. 
As for the national interest waiver, the Director's denial did not provide a sufficient analysis and 
related findings as required under Dhanasar's three-prong framework. The Director concluded that 
the "proposed endeavor has substantial merit, but not national importance," but did not otherwise 
properly address the proposed endeavor or provide any findings or analysis as to why it does not have 
national importance under the standard set forth in Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 3 The Director's 
denial further appears to conflate Dhanasar' s first prong analysis with its third prong factors and final 
balancing test, while only selectively discussing relevant evidence in the record in a limited manner. 
The Director's decision thus does not reflect a reasoned consideration of the Petitioner's claims and 
related documents he presented below for us to conduct a meaningful appellate review, as it did not 
sufficiently address his assertions and evidence pertinent to his classification eligibility and the 
claimed national importance of his proposed endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i) (stating that when 
denying a benefit, the Director shall explain the specific reasons for denial); see also Matter ofA-P-, 
22 I&N Dec. 468, 474, 478 (BIA 1999) (holding that a decision should reflect "the substantive 
completeness of the decision" and must accurately summarize the relevant facts, reflect analysis of the 
applicable statutes, regulations, and legal procedures, and clearly set forth legal conclusions); 
Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786, 787-78 (BIA 1994) (holding that the reasons for a denial must be 
clear to allow the affected party a meaningful opportunity to challenge the decision on appeal). 
2 In the RFE, the Director also twice refers to the Petitioner as an "industrial engineer." 
3 The Director instead referenced in part language from Matter of New York State Dep 't of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215 
(Acting Assoc. Comm'r 1998), which is not applicable here as this previous precedent decision was vacated by Dhanasar. 
2 
We will therefore withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for a new decision for 
further consideration and the entry of a new decision. On remand, the Director should review the 
entire record, including the appeal documents, and determine whether the Petitioner has established 
his eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification based on exceptional ability, and whether, in the 
Director's discretion, he warrants a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
We express no opinion as to the outcome of this matter. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3