remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Craft Beer Brewing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 06, 2024 In Re: 33037087 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a craft beer brewer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 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 record did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, that the Petitioner is well positioned to 
advance the endeavor, or that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of 
a job offer. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that 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 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 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. 
Id. 
TT. ADV AN CED DEGREE 
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 found that the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional. 
As the identified reasons below are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the EB-2 visa classification. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"). 
On remand, the Director should analyze the record and determine whether the Petitioner has 
established he is an advanced degree professional consistent with the regulations at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k). 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
The Petitioner is a craft beer brewer. In the brief submitted with the initial petition, the Petitioner 
states that his proposed endeavor is to provide his "expertise as an Entrepreneur and Business 
Executive to bring his .. .I Icraft beer brand and business operations to the United States." 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has 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. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Director made several errors in this matter. 
Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner that the Director's decision regarding the national interest 
waiver contained sufficient errors to warrant a remand. We are 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. 
1 See 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 is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
The organization of the decision makes it unclear which Dhanasar prong is being discussed at any 
one time, such that we cannot meaningfully review the decision. For example, in the beginning of the 
national interest waiver analysis, the decision discusses the balancing test, then pivots to a discussion 
of the proposed endeavor in Dhanasar, followed by a paragraph regarding job offers, and then one on 
the preponderance standard, all without analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility. In the latter part of the 
decision, there is a header indicating discussion of the third prong of Dhanasar, but it is followed by 
analysis wherein the first prong and the third prong are discussed together. A decision must fully 
explain the reasons for denying a visa petition 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)(l)(i); 
see also Matter ofM-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). 
On remand, the Director should review the entire record, including the Petitioner's appeal, and 
determine whether he has established eligibility for both the underlying classification and each of the 
three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. The Director should review the record and determine if the 
Petitioner's endeavor to bring his Icraft beer brand and business operations to the United 
States" will impact the field on a level commensurate with national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. at 889. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the 
determination prior to issuing a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3