remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Barber

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 04, 2024 In Re: 34888057 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a barber, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that that the proposed endeavor was of national importance, that the Petitioner is well 
positioned to advance the endeavor, or that it would be beneficial to waive the requirements of a job 
offer. 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 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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 the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) 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 confinned the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS 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 the requisite degree of expertise and will 
substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United 
States. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&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,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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the 
record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under any of the 
prongs of the Dhanasar framework, and therefore found him ineligible for a waiver of the job offer 
requirement. 4 For the reasons discussed below, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand 
the matter to the Director for entry of a new decision. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. 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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In the decision, the Director analyzed the substantial merit of a proposed endeavor involving 
mechanical engineering. This is not the Petitioner's endeavor. The Petitioner is a barber and 
entrepreneur. The Director also misquoted the request for evidence's (RFE) discussion on national 
importance. The Director's decision then determined that the Petitioner's endeavor was not nationally 
important without sufficient analysis of the record. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n undertaking 
3 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in concluding 
that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
4 The Director's decision seems to have reserved discussion of the visa classification. 
2 
may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within 
a particular field." Id. We also stated that"[ a ]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner stated that for his proposed endeavor he intends to establish a beauty salon and act as a 
hairdresser instructor. The reach of such an endeavor appears limited to the Petitioner's clients and 
students. Because the Director's decision contained inaccurate information and conclusory analysis, 
we are withdrawing the determination and remanding the case for further review and to provide an 
accurate and sufficient explanation of the grounds of denial so that the Petitioner can more fully 
understand the Director's concerns. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a 
model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the 
interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish this prong. In the evaluation of the 
evidence, the Director determined that the Petitioner has not influenced the field beyond the companies 
who employed him and that his academic accomplishments were insufficient to demonstrate that he 
is well positioned. The Director did not explain how the Petitioner's academic history precluded the 
Petitioner from being well positioned. In general, the Director did not identify and analyze what 
evidence in the record specifically made the Petitioner ill prepared to advance the proposed endeavor. 
On remand, the Director should identify and analyze the evidence to determine whether the record 
sufficiently demonstrates whether or not the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor. 
C. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial 
The third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer 
or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are 
available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
In each case, the factors considered must, taken together, establish 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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890-91. 
3 
On remand, if the Director concludes that the Petitioner does not meet Dhanasar 's third prong, the 
decision should address the Petitioner's arguments and evidence, and explain the relative decisional 
weight given to each balancing factor. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4