remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 08, 2023 In Re: 28803410 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a civil engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See section 203(b )(2) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). He further requests a national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 classification. See section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it would be in the national interest to grant a discretionary waiver of the job offer 
requirement. 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). While we conduct de novo review on 
appeal, Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015), we conclude that a remand 
is warranted in this case because the Director's decision is insufficient for review. The decision lacks 
analysis and discussion of the evidence in the record and reaches conclusory findings with respect to 
the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. Accordingly, we will withdraw 
the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following 
analysis. 
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. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. The 
record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner, who has the foreign equivalent of a 
master's degree in structural engineering, qualifies for EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions possessing an advanced degree. 1 
1 We note that the Director did not address the Petitioner 's eligibility for EB-2 classification in the final decision issued on 
April 20, 2023. However, in a request for evidence (RFE) issued on July 7, 2022, the Director advised the Petitioner that 
the initial evidence established his eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. As such, the 
Director did not consider the Petitioner 's alternate claim that he also qualifies for EB-2 classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
If 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, 
as matter of discretion, 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. 
In evaluating the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver, the Director addressed only the 
first prong of the Dhanasar framework, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish the substantial 
merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor. In reaching this conclusion, the Director 
observed that the Petitioner "did not submit a statement as to what his proposed endeavor would be" 
at the time of filing. We note that the initial evidence included a supporting letter from the Petitioner, 
and that the last six pages of this letter addressed his proposed endeavor to provide civil engineering 
consulting services through a Florida company that he had co-founded. The Director farther found 
that the Petitioner's response to a request for evidence (RFE) did not include "a detailed description 
of the proposed endeavor." However, the RFE response included: a 13-page letter from the Petitioner 
in which he described the proposed endeavor and a 10-page letter from the Petitioner in which he 
addressed how his proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance based on the 
factors set forth under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The Director's determination that 
the Petitioner did not provide a detailed description of the proposed endeavor is not supported by the 
record and was not adequately explained. 
The Director quoted a portion of one of the Petitioner's letters submitted in response to the RFE but 
did not acknowledge or discuss any other evidence provided, which included, but was not limited to, 
a business plan for the Florida company that the Petitioner had co-founded, expert opinion letters, 
letters of interest from other professionals in the field, articles and media reports providing background 
on the Petitioner's industry and occupation, and evidence intended to support the Petitioner's claim 
that his endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects, will enhance societal welfare, and 
will impact a matter that is the subject of national government initiatives. These factors are relevant to 
a determination regarding the potential prospective impact of his work under the Dhanasar framework 
and should be weighed as part of the first prong analysis. In fact, the Director had specifically 
instructed the Petitioner to address such factors in his response to the RFE, but then failed to give those 
claims due consideration. 
Further, the Director appeared to apply heightened standards that are outside the scope of the first 
prong of the analytical framework established in Dhanasar. In doing so, the Director overlooked or 
was dismissive of evidence relevant to the first prong analysis. For example, the Director appeared to 
require the Petitioner to demonstrate that "his proposed endeavor has already been utilized, has 
improved, or affected the development of ... policies, industry, or has otherwise influenced [his] field 
as a whole." 
2 
While the evidence of record may ultimately be insufficient to demonstrate the substantial merit and 
national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy the first prong was conclusory, did not adequately address the evidence and arguments 
submitted, did not discuss most of the relevant factors set forth in Dhanasar, and therefore did not 
sufficiently explain the reasons for denial. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i). This 
explanation should be sufficient to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and 
to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See, e.g. 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). Here, for the 
reasons discussed, the Director's decision was insufficient and did not allow the Petitioner a 
meaningful opportunity to address any deficiencies on appeal with respect to the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Further, the Director did not address any of the evidence submitted under 
Dhanasar 's second and third prongs or reach a determination regarding the Petitioner's eligibility 
under those prongs. 
Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for further consideration 
and entry of a new decision. On remand, the Director should review the entire record, including the 
Petitioner's appeal, and determine whether he has established eligibility under each of the three prongs 
of the Dhanasar framework. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent 
to the determination prior to issuing a new decision. As such, we express no opinion regarding the 
ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3