remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Chaplaincy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 24, 2024 In Re: 310748444 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chaplain, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and/or 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101 ( a)(32) 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). 2 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 3 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then 
establish 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 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, 4 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner states that he has more than 10 years of involvement with the Christian church, 
including as a minister, church administrator, pastoral educator, and youth mentor. He states that his 
proposed endeavor is to serve as a chaplain providing "a holistic approach to health through the 
provision of spiritual care and promotion of healthy lifestyle." He states that he will partner with the 
healthcare system and/or U.S. military to provide his services as a chaplain and spiritual caregiver. 
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish his eligibility for the requested EB-2 
classification and for the national interest waiver. The RFE noted that the Petitioner had not 
established his eligibility for classification as an advanced degree professional or an individual with 
exceptional ability, or any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 
In response to the RFE the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education and experience, certificates 
of achievement and recognition, recommendation and support letters, and evidence of publications 
and presentations. He also submitted a cover letter outlining his proposed endeavor and eligibility for 
a national interest waiver. 
2 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). 
3 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
4 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
After reviewing the Petitioner's response to the RFE, the Director determined that the Petitioner did 
not establish that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, that he is well­
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, or that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement 
would benefit the United States. The Director did not make a determination on whether the Petitioner 
was eligible for the requested EB-2 classification as either an advanced degree professional or an 
individual of exceptional ability. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director made several errors in this matter, including errors 
of fact, law and policy. The Petitioner further asserts that the Director did not provide an analysis of 
the evidence in the record or describe its deficiencies. 
A. Eligibility for the Requested Classification 
As stated above, the first step to establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver is demonstrating 
qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. Here, the Director's decision is deficient in 
that it did not make an initial determination regarding the Petitioner's eligibility in this threshold first 
step. The Director does not discuss or analyze evidence in the record submitted to establish that the 
Petitioner is an advanced degree professional. 5 Regarding whether the Petitioner is an individual of 
exceptional ability, the Director states that the Petitioner has established that he meets all six criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 6 However, the Director does not provide any discussion or 
analysis of a final merits determination to conclude whether, in its totality, the Petitioner has 
demonstrated that he is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the field. 
On remand, the Director should determine whether the Petitioner has established that he is an advanced 
degree professional consistent with the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). If not, the Director 
should then conduct a final merits determination to conclude whether the Petitioner has achieved a 
level of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in chaplaincy as required to qualify 
as an individual of exceptional ability. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
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. Here, the Director does not discuss or make any determination 
regarding the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
In addressing each prong of the framework under Matter ofDhanasar, the Director's decision lists the 
potential factors to be considered but does not meaningfully apply these factors to the Petitioner's 
evidence or explain why the evidence was insufficient to establish eligibility under each prong. The 
5 The record includes a copy of a U.S. master of arts degree in Christian education and academic transcripts issued to the 
Petitioner in 2020. 
6 We note that, in the decision, the Director incorrectly states that the Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability as an "Airline Pilot." 
3 
Director must explain in writing the specific reasons for denial. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). Here, the 
Director did not adequately explain how the evidence in the record led to the determination that the 
Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the 
labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
In discussing the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the Director states that 
the Petitioner "has not substantiated how his specific work in the field of spiritual care can positively 
impact the U.S. economy." However, "merit may be established without immediate or quantifiable 
economic impact." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 892. See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The Director does not discuss the Petitioner's 
description of his proposed endeavor in any detail, or address whether it has the significant potential 
to broadly enhance societal welfare, rising to the level of national importance. 
In her decision addressing the second Dhanasar prong, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's 
education, publications and support letters. She then states, "USCIS cannot conclude his professional 
activities reflect a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar 's 
second prong." However, the Director does not provide a discussion of the Petitioner's evidence in 
the record, including evidence that he has the support of a foundation that provides grants for 
philanthropic work, or his correspondence with a chaplain recrniter for the U.S. Army. 
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 factor(s) 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. 
Id. at 890-91. 
In addressing the third Dhanasar prong, the Director states that, "based on the above-discussed 
documentary evidence, the Petitioner has not established that it would be beneficial to the United 
States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification." However, the decision 
does not discuss the documentary evidence in the record, including the Petitioner's cover letter, 
evidence of his interest in a chaplain residency program through a hospital, or evidence of his 
correspondence with a chaplain recrniter for the U.S. Army. The Director's decision lists the potential 
factors to be considered but does not apply any factors to the Petitioner's evidence or explain why the 
evidence did not demonstrate the benefits of a waiver of the job offer, and thus of a labor certification. 
As noted above, the Director must explain in writing the specific reasons for denial. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(a)(l)(i). Here, the Director did not adequately explain how the evidence in the record led to the 
determination that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit and 
national importance, that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor or that, on balance, 
waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. The lack of detail in the denial did 
4 
not give the Petitioner a sufficient opportunity to prepare a substantive appeal. Therefore, we will 
withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further consideration. 
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. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In concluding that the Petitioner submitted insufficient evidence to establish that a waiver of the 
classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest, the Director did not provide sufficient detail to explain the reasons for denial as required by 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5