remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Colorectal Cancer Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: Jan. 11, 2024 In Re: 29337812 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a postdoctoral research fellow, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, 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 Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. If a 
petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 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 
that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• 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. EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
The Petitioner asserts that she is eligible for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional; however, the Director did not evaluate her claim. On remand, the Director should 
evaluate the documentation submitted in the record to determine whether the Petitioner meets the 
requirements of an advanced degree professional. Also, as the Director did not address this issue in 
the request for evidence or denial decision, they should afford the Petitioner the opportunity to address 
any deficiencies in the evidence by issuing a second request for evidence if needed. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was not eligible for, and did not otherwise merit, a 
national interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director ignored substantial 
evidence submitted in support of her petition and as a result did not reach a proper conclusion in 
denying her national interest waiver request. She further asserts that the reasoning used by the 
Director in the denial is confusing when addressing certain aspects of this case. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow a 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)(l)(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). Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner 
that the Director's reasoning is confusing and lacks substantial analysis of the evidence under the 
three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We are therefore remanding the case to the 
Director 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. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, but not national importance. 
The Petitioner indicated that her proposed endeavor is to "continue her research focused on 
investigating the phenotypical and genetic factors involved in hereditary colorectal cancer using her 
expertise in colorectal screening and next generation sequencing in order to improve screening 
methods and develop novel biomarkers." She submitted several publications and statistics addressing 
the prevalence and risks associated with colorectal cancer and obesity. We agree that this evidence is 
2 
sufficient to show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of continuing research in the field of 
colorectal cancer to help develop improved screening and treatment is of substantial merit. 
Turning to the national importance of her proposed endeavor, the Director concluded that the endeavor 
did not have national importance but did not provide an analysis or explain the reasoning behind this 
conclusion. Moreover, as pointed out by the Petitioner on appeal, the Director did not identify or 
analyze the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor at all in the decision, so it is unclear how such 
a determination was made. 
Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner that the Director's decision is insufficient for review as it 
pertains to the proposed endeavor's national importance, and farther note that the Director's reasoning 
is confusing. For example, the Director incorporates their analysis of the endeavor's national 
importance within their discussion of whether, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, thereby conflating the 
evidentiary requirements for these distinct prongs within the Dhanasar framework. 
On remand, the Director should analyze the evidence to determine whether the record sufficiently 
demonstrates that the proposed endeavor has national importance. In determining whether the 
proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director should focus on what the Petitioner will be doing rather 
than the specific occupation, and should keep in mind that it is the national importance of the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor that must be shown, not the importance of the overall field of 
colorectal cancer research. An endeavor having significant potential on the broader implications for 
a field or region generally may rise to the level of having national importance for the purpose of 
establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver.2 The Director should review the record to 
determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated her proposed endeavor has significant potential on 
the broader impact in the field. 
If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet the national importance 
requirements ofDhanasar's first prong, the decision should discuss the insufficiencies in the evidence 
and adequately explain the reasons for ineligibility. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
In the second prong, the focus shifts to the petitioner and their positioning to advance their proposed 
endeavor, and we look at several factors in making this determination. 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. See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The Director did not independently evaluate the Petitioner's eligibility under the second prong. As 
with the issue of national importance, the Director incorporated their analysis of whether the Petitioner 
is well positioned to advanced her proposed endeavor into their analysis of Dhanasar 's third prong, 
2 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(D)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
3 
again conflating the evidentiary requirements for these distinct prongs. Moreover, the Director's 
wording is again confusing, as they offered conflicting conclusions regarding whether the Petitioner 
satisfied this prong. On page three of the denial decision, the Director states: "Based on the evidence 
currently in the record, the petitioner was found to be well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor." However, on page four of the decision, the Director states that "she has not shown that her 
experience and education alone are sufficient to establish that she is well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor" and concludes that an expert opinion letter, the contents of which were not 
discussed in detail, was likewise insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner notes these discrepancies and states that she is "simply unable to interpret 
USCIS's evaluation of the second prong under Dhanasar." We agree with the Petitioner that the 
Director presented confusing analysis and conflicting conclusions in the denial with regard to this 
prong. Again, an officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow a 
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)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786. 
On remand, the Director should analyze the evidence to determine whether the record sufficiently 
demonstrates the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and should articulate 
the basis for finding whether the evidence shows or fails to show that she is well positioned to advance 
her endeavor. If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet Dhanasar 's 
second prong, the decision should discuss the insufficiencies in the evidence and adequately explain 
the reasons for ineligibility. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As to the third prong of Dhanasar, the Director stated the law and the relevant considerations in 
performing the third prong's balancing analysis and concluded that the Petitioner "has not submitted 
documentary evidence that demonstrates 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." On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that the decision "reached conclusions that are inconsistent with and not supported by the 
evidence of record" and thus constitutes an abuse of discretion pursuant to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 
1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994). 
The Director did not sufficiently acknowledge and address the evidence ofrecord as to the third prong, 
and did not discuss the evidence weighed in balancing the relevant considerations. On remand, the 
Director should address all of the Petitioner's arguments and evidence, and explain the relative 
decisional weight given to each balancing factor. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of 
M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, we are remanding the petition for the Director to consider whether the Petitioner has 
satisfied the eligibility requirements for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional. In addition, the Director should properly apply all three prongs of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework to determine if the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of 
4 
a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 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 Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5