remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22395029 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP. 21, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a visiting scholar and researcher , seeks second preference immigrant classification as 
either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or 
business. He also seeks 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). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification , U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner demonstrates : (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit 
and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor; and (3) 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 of Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that, while the Petitioner 
established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant visa classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, the record did not establish that a waiver of the 
classification's job offer requirement would be in the national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that he merits a national interest waiver. He further asserts that the Director misapplied facts, 
did not consider evidence in the record, and incorrectly interpreted precedent case law. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the decision and 
remand this matter for the entry of a new decision consistent with the analysis below. 
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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer , a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, 8 USC § l 10l(a)(32), provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall 
include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
2 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). In announcing this new framework, we vacated 
our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 
215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest 
waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F .3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th 
Cir. 2019) ( finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in 
nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted if the petitioner 
demonstrates: ( 1) that the foreign national' s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
(3) 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. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three 
prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions with an advanced 
degree. The record demonstrates that the Petitioner earned a doctoral degree in economics with a 
major in industrial relations in Turkey in 2003, which has been evaluated to be the foreign equivalent 
of a doctoral degree in economics from a U.S. university. The remaining issue to consider is whether 
the Petitioner has established eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that he currently serves as a visiting scholar at the College of 
Business at I University in I I In his personal statements, the Petitioner describes 
his proposed endeavor as conducting research in the fields of general management, knowledge 
management, supply chain management and healthcare management, "to analyze how organizations 
can gain sustainable competitive advantage and how employees can contribute to this process." He 
also describes his future research plans on the topics of knowledge sharing, innovation and knowledge 
utilization, and diversity management. He proposes to use this research to help the U.S. economy by 
designing "unique knowledge management systems for use in small businesses to enhance their 
competitive advantages in the market, which will ultimately foster continued innovation, better 
customer satisfaction, and supply chain management in small businesses as a whole." 
To support his personal statements, the Petitioner submitted a letter of recommendation and three 
advisory opinions from other researchers in the field of business and health management, as well as 
evidence of his peer-reviewed publications and citations. The letter of recommendation is fromD 
I I professor in the Department ot1 I Management atl I University, Turkey. 
I I describes the Petitioner's research contributions to the field of business management and 
discusses the importance of his past research, mainly of businesses and industries in Turkey, on 
measuring customer satisfaction to improve service quality and cost management in hospitals. 
3 
The Petitioner also provided three independent advisory opinions, written by: 
• 
• 
I professor of marketing and international business at 
University 
_____ professor of marketing and international business at I __ 
College; and 
• I I professor of hospitality and tourism at ____ 
University, School of Business. 
Each of the advisory opinions further discusses the importance of global business competition to the 
American economy and how the Petitioner's continued research will allow U.S. businesses to improve 
performance and gain a strategic advantage in the global economy. 
To demonstrate the potential national importance of his research, the Petitioner submitted evidence of 
its implications for the United States. This included information on economic growth programs from 
the United States Agency for International Development, and statistics of the U.S. percentage share of 
the global economy taken from the website, "Investopedia.com." The Petitioner also provided 
information from the website of the Office of United States Trade Representative, Executive Office 
of the President, describing small to medium enterprise businesses, the focus business size of his 
proposed endeavor, as "the backbone of the American and European economies." 
Upon review of the initial filing, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), stating that the 
record did not "provide insight as to what [the Petitioner] intends to do as a [professor] and how his 
intentions are of substantial merit and national importance in the United States." In the RFE, the 
Director noted that the record also did not establish that the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance 
the proposed endeavor or that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirement of 
a job offer. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted additional evidence of his publications and citations 
to his work. He submitted multiple scholarly articles citing his research and discussing its application 
in the field of business management. The articles describe how the Petitioner's research has supported 
the work of others in the study of knowledge management, organizational performance, supply chain 
management, service quality, and human resource competency. He also submitted journal articles to 
demonstrate that his proposed endeavor supports the goals of the United States government. The 
articles describe the importance of knowledge management for small businesses and the healthcare 
industry in the United States, the impact of supply chain management and U.S. employment, and the 
government's desire to focus on diversity in the workforce. 
The Director denied the petition. He concluded that the evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner met 
the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, in that he was well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor. However, the evidence did not establish that he met the first and third prongs - that the 
proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance, and 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. 
Regarding the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the Director stated in his 
decision that, "beyond the general assertion that the Petitioner intends to continue his research in the 
4 
field of management, the description of his endeavor lacks specifics into what he intends to do beyond 
his research." The Director cites only to the Petitioner's personal statements and does not reference, 
analyze, or appear to consider the supporting materials submitted with the initial filing or in response 
to the RFE. 
Regarding the proposed endeavor's national importance, the Director again cites only to the 
Petitioner's personal statement, and states that he "did not provide evidence beyond his publishing 
record as to how his work will have significant or substantial impact on the national interest of the 
United States." 
The Director did not address or analyze all of the evidence in the record or explain how this evidence 
was insufficient to establish the Petitioner's eligibility. This includes the accompanying brief from 
the Petitioner's counsel, the letter of recommendation, the advisory opinions, and other evidence 
submitted to demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. An officer must 
fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow the 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)(i); see also Matter of M-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). Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's decision based 
on this deficiency. On remand, the Director should review the entire record in considering whether 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit within the Dhanasar framework and provide 
an analysis of the factors considered in making his decision. 
In addition, although the Petitioner's current research may shed light upon and support his proposed 
endeavor, the Dhanasar decision is clear that it is the potential of the prospective endeavor which is 
considered under the first prong. 1 Therefore, on remand, the Director should evaluate the proposed 
endeavor's potential prospective impact as stated in the record to determine whether it is of national 
importance. 
B. Whether on Balance it Would be in the National Interest to Grant a Waiver 
In concluding that it would not be in the national interest to grant a waiver of the job offer requirement, 
and thus waive a labor certification, the Director states that the evidence of record is insufficient. 
However, he does not cite to any specific evidence that the Petitioner submitted or describe how that 
specific evidence is insufficient. On remand, if the Director determines after reconsideration and 
analysis that the Petitioner meets the first two prongs, the Director should evaluate the Petitioner's 
statements and evidence in support of the third prong. Upon a complete review of the entire record, 
the Director should provide a full and complete analysis of whether, on balance, it would be in the 
national interest to grant a waiver of the labor certification. The Director should consider factors such 
as, whether a labor certification would be impractical, whether the U.S. would benefit from the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor, whether the national interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is 
sufficiently urgent, and whether the proposed endeavor has the potential for job creation. 
1 Dhanasar at 889 ("In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact.") 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Director did not address all of the evidence in the record and fully explain the specific reasons for 
denial in his decision, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i). Therefore, we are remanding the petition 
for the Director to consider whether the Petitioner has established, under all three prongs of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework, whether a waiver of the requirements of a job offer, and thus a labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
6