remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Brand Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19582775 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 22, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a brand consultant and chief executive, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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, noting that "[a]fter the [P]etitioner has 
established ... eligibility for second preference classification under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the [Act], 
[U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] may grant a national interest waiver if the [P]etitioner 
demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that [the criteria established in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 
l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), have been satisfied]." The Director proceeded to conduct a Dhanasar 
analysis without first concluding whether the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa 
classification. 
While we conduct de nova review on appeal, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case 
because the Director's decision is insufficient for review. As presently constituted, the record does 
not establish whether the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an alien of exceptional ability. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
In his initial submission, the Petitioner claimed to be eligible as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree, and submitted evidence in support of this claim. In a request for evidence, the 
Director mischaracterized the criterion under which the Petitioner sought eligibility, and requested 
evidence in support of the Petitioner's qualification as an individual of exceptional ability without 
addressing or acknowledging the Petitioner's claimed eligibility as an advanced degree professional. 
In response, the Petitioner noted the Director's error and reasserted his eligibility as an advanced 
degree professional, but also complied with the Director's request and supplemented the record with 
evidence in support of his eligibility under the alternate criterion. 
In denying the petition, the Director did not state in his decision whether he had concluded that the 
Petitioner was eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, and did not provide any analysis of 
the evidence submitted in support of the Petitioner's eligibility as either an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability. We are therefore remanding this matter to the 
Director to issue a new decision which includes a conclusion regarding the Petitioner's eligibility for 
the underlying EB-2 visa classification, the threshold determination in national interest waiver cases, 
as well as an analysis of the evidence to support that conclusion. 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 decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
2