remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Educational Psychology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 25, 2023 In Re: 26957404 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur and an educational psychologist, 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 Petitioner is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we wi 11 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. An 
advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree.1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for 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 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion2, 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 Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as an entrepreneur in the field of educational 
psychology having worked in Colombia as business owner developing online courses in psychology 
and entrepreneurship, and as an undergraduate professor in educational psychology. He holds a 
~in psychology and a diploma in psychology, both from Universidadl Iin 
L____.,__JColombia. The Director determined that the Petitioner established his eligibility as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree based on his degrees being the foreign equivalent of a 
U.S. master's degree. 
The Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, 
and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The Director's decision 
concluded that "substantial merit and national importance is met." However, the decision does not 
sufficiently explain the basis for this determination. 
The Director does not identify or describe the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner did not complete 
Part 6 of the petition, "Basic Information about the Proposed Employment", and submitted astatement 
of a broad description of his proposed endeavor, "[r]esearch and training pertaining to [sic] suicide 
prevention with children and adolescents, as well as support teaching activities in the disciplines of 
psychology and education." In responding to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner 
submitted a professional plan about his new business,! Iwhich is characterized as "a network 
of education, transformation and entrepreneurship". The professional plan states the business will 
provide consulting services to "school communities that will help make schools safer places and that 
parents [sic] can better know and relate to their children." 
The Director should analyze the evidence to determine whether the record sufficiently describes the 
proposed endeavor, 3 and whether the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. 
2 See also Poursina v. USClS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 An endeavor is more specific than a general occupation, and a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the 
occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(0)(1), https:///www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 
The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, or education.4 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. The Director should focus on what the 
Petitioner will be doing rather than the specific occupation. 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. 5 The Director 
should review the record to determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated his 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 substantial merit or 
national importance requirements of Dhanasar'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 
For Dhanasar 's second prong, the Director concluded that while the record shows the Petitioner "has 
gained skills and experience in his field of endeavor", it did not demonstrate that the Petitioner is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. While the decision identifies some of the submitted 
evidence, the Petitioner's academic record and letters of recommendation, it omits other evidence and 
does not sufficiently explain the basis for this determination. 
The Director should analyze the evidence to determine if the Petitioner is 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. Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not apply the preponderance of the evidence 
standard of proof and provides an analysis of the previously submitted evidence. An officer must fully 
explain the reasons for denying a petition in order 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 l&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must 
fully explain the reasons for denial to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the 
determination on appeal). Here, the Director's decision did not adequately address the evidence 
submitted with the petition or in response to the request for evidence. 
Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner does not meet the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. Any new determination by the Director must consider all of the 
evidence offered for prong two, including the Petitioner's academic record, certifications and 
trainings, memberships, awards, the expert opinion letter, the recommendation letters, and the 
4 Id. 
5 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual at F.5(0)(1). 
3 
Petitioner's employment verification letters. The Director should analyze the specific content of the 
record to determine if this documentation renders him well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor. If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet Dhanasar 's 
second prong, his decision should discuss the insufficiencies in his 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 established 
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 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. 
Without a proper evaluation of the factors identified in Dhanasar 's third prong, the Director's 
determination for this prong was in error. If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's documentation 
does not meet this prong, the decision should address the Petitioner's arguments and evidence, and 
explain the relative decisional weight given to each balancing factor. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, we are remanding the petition to the Director to determine if 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. 
4