remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Criminology And Criminal Justice

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 25462972 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 23, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a researcher in criminology and criminal justice , 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner filed a subsequent motion to reopen the matter , which the Director granted . Upon 
reopening , the Director again denied the petition on the same grounds . 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review , 
we will withdraw the Director 's deci sion 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 establi sh 
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 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
In addition to the Petitioner's academic background in law enforcement, criminal justice and 
criminology, he has more than 15 years of experience in criminal justice. While pursuing 
undergraduate and graduate degrees he worked in intelligence and security for a foreign government 
for more than a decade. He earned his private investigator diploma in 2017 and has been employed 
with thel I as a corrections treatment officer since 2018. He states 
that he is a researcher who has published books and articles in international journals and has worked 
on research projects for the World Health Organization. 
The Petitioner stated in the initial filing that he intended to continue his employment with the 
as a corrections treatment officer and supervisor. In this position he states 
that he will continue to assist in the formulation and implementation of policy and procedures, direct 
the corrections treatment officers and related staff, and work with mental health and medical 
professional to coordinate and provide therapeutic and rehabilitation programs for inpatient prisoners. 
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 national interest 
waiver. The Director noted that in his initial filing the Petitioner had not established that the proposed 
endeavor had substantial merit and was of national importance, that he was well positioned to advance 
the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the equivalent of a U.S. doctor of philosophy degree in criminology 
earned in 2016 in Nigeria. Prior to that, the Petitioner was awarded the U.S. equivalent of a bachelor's degree in sociology 
in 2009 and a master's degree in law enforcement and criminal justice in 2011, both in Nigeria. 
2 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes a proposed project plan, recommendation letters, 
financial documents, and evidence of his publications and citations to his work. In his proposed project 
plan, the Petitioner states that his goal is to perform research in U.S. criminal justice policy to support 
reform in the treatment of mental illness in the U.S. prison system. He identified some of his core 
goals as: 
• Reviewing the treatment of incarcerated individuals with mental illness to identify 
inconsistencies; 
• Analyzing "criminogenic behavior" to treat "manipulation tendencies in program 
implementation;" 
• Advocating for "exit-treatment programming or communicated based treatment" to 
reduce recidivism for individuals with mental illness who are released from 
incarceration; and 
• Advocating for fonding and support for "programs to ease the transition from prison 
to community." 
The Petitioner also describes steps he has taken in support of his proposed endeavor. He states that he 
is working on a research study to address mental illness, criminal tendencies and recidivism in order 
to increase available resources for incarcerated individuals with mental illness. He further states that 
he has applied for the position of chief executive officer of a newly constructed inpatient treatment 
center and that his selection would improve safety and security in treating incarcerated individuals 
with mental illness. Finally, he states that he intends to "create a consultancy firm ... to address the 
recidivism-menace associated with offenders with mental illness." 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit. However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has national importance, that he is well-positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive 
the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. 
The Petitioner then filed a motion to reopen the matter which the Director granted. On motion, the 
Petitioner submitted a brief, additional recommendation letters, a list of citations to his work, and other 
evidence of his publications and achievements. He also elaborates on his proposed endeavor. He 
states that he com leted his research stud and is awaitin ublication of his research book titled 
In his study he advocates for the "de-institutionalization of treatment" for 
incarcerated individuals with mental illness. He states that this change in policy would "build 
economic prospects" by providing incarcerated individuals with employment opportunities that 
contribute to the U.S. economy and by allowing private businesses to manage treatment plans which 
include employment and training. He further states that these policy changes would have a broad 
impact in multiple ways, including: 
• Addressing "economic production challenges ... in key agriculture, mining and in 
oil exploration sectors to mention just a few." 
• Improving the U.S. economy in international competitiveness. 
3 
• Reducing the cost of imprisonment to the U.S. taxpayer and diverting taxpayer 
funds to "public amenities and infrastructural improvement." 
• Reducing the overall number of incarcerated individuals within two years. 
• Positioning formerly incarcerated individuals "more advantageously after their 
prison terms." 
After reopening the matter, the Director affirmed the petition's denial. The Director reiterated the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as his employment with the ____________ He 
concluded that the job duties of the position and other supporting evidence did not demonstrate how 
the proposed endeavor will extend beyond the Petitioner's employment as a correction treatment 
officer to impact the field of criminology more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. The Director also determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated "evidence of 
achievements that he intends to build upon or further develop" to establish that he is well-positioned 
to advance his proposed endeavor. He noted that the Petitioner's publications, citations to his work, 
his membership on the editorial board of an international journal, and his copyright registration were 
"insufficient to establish a record of success." He also noted that the record lacked evidence of 
government interest in his research study to establish a wider national interest in his proposal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director incorrectly applied the requirements of other 
employment-based immigrant classifications in analyzing whether he is well-positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor. He further asserts that the Director did not fully review and consider all of the 
evidence in the record. 
With respect to the Petitioner's assertion that the Director did not correctly apply the requirements for 
the 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, the Petitioner points to "page 3 Paragraph 1-
3" of the Director's decision on motion. We note that in those paragraphs the Director addresses 
whether the Petitioner has established that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and 
analyzes the Petitioner's Google Scholar profile, papers citing the Petitioner's work, and 
recommendation letters. However, the Petitioner does not identify specific language in those 
paragraphs or anywhere in the Director's decision that references "different immigrant-employment 
based category requirements (such as EBl; EBlA and/or I-129)." Upon our review, we determine 
that the Director properly applied the requirements for the requested EB-2 classification and the three­
prong analysis under Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884. 
With respect to the Petitioner's assertion that the Director did not fully review and consider all of the 
evidence in the record, we agree. In discussing whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
national importance, the Director referenced the job duties of the Petitioner's position as correction 
treatment officer and articles in the record on mental illness and recidivism. However, the Director 
did not acknowledge or discuss the Petitioner's research study or the detailed policy changes he 
outlines in his brief on motion stemming from the initially submitted proposal. 
Similarly, in discussing whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, 
the Director does not acknowledge or discuss the Petitioner's research study, which the Petitioner 
describes as a specific achievement that he intends to build upon and further develop in pursuit of his 
proposed endeavor. Additionally, the Director cites to a lack of letters demonstrating interest in the 
4 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor without discussing or analyzing the evidence in the record. However, 
we note that the record includes letters from the ___________ and an independent 
correctional oversight organization in Illinois. Both letters describe the Petitioner's research study 
and the impact of his proposed policy changes. 
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 "did not show the 
national importance of [his] proposed endeavor and [he] did not establish that [he has] support and 
commitment to render [him] well-positioned." However, the Director did not discuss the evidence he 
weighed in balancing those considerations nor address the Petitioner's specific claims, if any, as to the 
third prong. 
An officer 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)(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 and fully analyze 
the entire record in considering whether the Petitioner has established eligibility under each of the 
three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to determine whether the Petitioner has 
established eligibility for a national interest waiver and to enter a new decision. 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