remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Education Policy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 16, 2024 In Re: 31108887 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an associate professor/researcher, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. 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 although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he 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 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the 
noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks to advance research in educational administration and policy, with a specific 
focus on exploring 
the relationships between teacher performance and student success. The Director 
found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
However, we cannot meaningfully review the portion of the Director's decision that analyzed 
Dhanasar 's three prongs. Because it contains two sections that each separately analyze the "national 
importance" component of Dhanasar 's first prong and then discusses Dhanasar 's third prong in an 
unusual location, the decision's overall structure is confusing and difficult to follow. Moreover, 
neither "national importance" discussion contains meaningful detail. The Director's discussion of 
Dhanasar 's second prong-whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor-is similarly problematic. The Director first notified the Petitioner in the request for 
additional evidence (RFE) that they had concluded the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor, only to retract that finding in the final decision, thereby denying the Petitioner a 
chance to cure the record. And the portion of the Director's decision analyzing Dhanasar's third 
prong-the so-called "balancing test"-contains no meaningful analysis for us to review. These 
factors collectively compel us to withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for additional 
action. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor's Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the 
noncitizen 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. 
The Director issued an RFE requesting, among other things, further evidence of how the proposed 
endeavor would be of national importance. In the RFE, the Director determined that the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit, and that the Petitioner was well positioned to advance his endeavor. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided an updated statement, journals, industry reports and 
articles, Google Scholar profile, and documentation of articles that cited to his research findings. The 
Director found that while the Petitioner's endeavor had substantial merit, the Petitioner did not 
1 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 
establish the proposed endeavor is of national importance. In the decision denying the appeal, the 
Director concluded that the Petitioner has not shown sufficient evidence to establish that he is well 
positioned to advance the proposed, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive 
the job offer requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erroneously denied the petition and failed to fully 
adjudicate the case in accordance with Dhanasar and other USCIS policy. We agree. The Director's 
decision did not meaningfully analyze the proposed endeavor's national importance or adequately 
discuss the Petitioner's evidence. An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying the application 
in order to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to afford us an opportunity 
for meaningful appellate review. Cf Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that an 
Immigration Judge 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 provide a full and complete analysis of whether the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor is of national importance. If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's 
documentation does not meet the substantial merit or 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 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the 
noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner has not "shown that his 
experience and education alone are sufficient to establish that he is well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor." The Director further noted that "the expert opinion letter was insufficient to 
demonstrate that the petitioner was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor" after initially 
stating that the Petitioner was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor in the RFE. On 
remand, the Director should review and evaluate the record to determine whether the Petitioner is 
indeed well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. See id. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, in light of the nature of the 
noncitizen's qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen 
to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that 
3 
other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's 
contributions; and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent 
to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, 
indicate 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. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not 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. However, 
the Director provided little analysis or insight into that decision. On remand, if the Director concludes 
that the Petitioner does not meet Dhanasar's third prong, the decision should address the Petitioner's 
arguments and evidence. See id. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons outlined above, we are withdrawing the Director's decision and remanding the matter 
so that the Director may determine whether the Petitioner has established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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 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 and we express no 
opinion regarding this matter's ultimate disposition. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4