remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 24, 2024 In Re: 33959843 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an electrical engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate he merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter a/Christa 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. 
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." 
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. 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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. 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 framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of 
discretion,2 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established his eligibility for the underlying EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. However, the Director 
found that the Petitioner did not establish his eligibility under the second and third prongs of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework, and therefore found him ineligible for a waiver of the job offer 
requirement. 
A. Member of Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Director's decision did not provide a basis for determining the Petitioner qualifies as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree. The Petitioner submitted his diploma, academic 
transcripts, an academic evaluation, recommendation letters, and his Brazilian business' corporate and 
financial documents. The record shows that the Petitioner earned a bachelor of electrical engineering 
from ________ in Brazil on April 10, 2013, which is the foreign equivalent of a 
U.S. bachelor's degree. 
However, the Petitioner did not show that he has five years of progressive experience in his specialty. 
The Petitioner submitted recommendation letters from colleagues attesting to the Petitioner working 
with them on various electrical projects and his investment in asenior living project. Even though the 
letters name the year when the projects took place, the letters do not specify the dates ofthe Petitioner's 
work experience and his specific job duties to show five years of progressive experience in his 
specialty. Also, the corporate and financial documents relating to the Petitioner's businesses in Brazil 
do not show the Petitioner's job duties for these businesses and the specific dates he worked in his 
specialty. Without further evidence, the Petitioner has not established that he has five years of 
progressive experience in his specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Therefore, we withdraw the 
Director's decision that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in 
concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The Director did not make a determination whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor meets the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The first prong, substantial merit and national 
importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director's decision identifies the Petitioner's proposed endeavor by stating that he "intends to 
work as an [e]lectrical [e]ngineer and [e]ntrepreneur" and provided the legal requirements for meeting 
Dhanasar 's first prong. However, the decision neither discusses the facts of the case nor indicates 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit or is ofnational importance. Similar 
to the decision, a request for evidence (RFE) stated the legal requirements for meeting Dhanasar's 
first prong but did not discuss the facts of this case with those legal requirements. Moreover, the RFE 
did not state any insufficiencies in the Petitioner's evidence relating to the first prong. 
On remand, the Director should analyze the evidence to determine whether the record sufficiently 
describes the proposed endeavor, and whether the endeavor has substantial merit and is of national 
importance. Ifthe 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. 
C. Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
For 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. Id. at 890. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he is well-positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor. Although the decision identifies the Petitioner's submitted evidence and provides 
brief references to a few pieces of evidence, the Director does not sufficiently explain the basis for 
this determination. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his previously provided evidence shows he 
is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, specifically pointing to his academic credentials, 
training certificates, letters of recommendation from individuals in his field, his professional plan, 
documents relating to his businesses in Brazil, letters of intent to work with the Petitioner, and an 
opinion letter. 
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, 787-88 (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 the RFE response. 
3 
Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner does not meet the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. On remand, any new determination by the Director should 
consider the evidence offered for prong two, including the Petitioner's academic record, certifications 
and trainings, letters of recommendation, his professional plan, documents relating to his Brazil 
businesses, letters of intent to work with the Petitioner, and the opinion letter. 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, 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 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, while the Director's decision identifies the Petitioner's 
submitted evidence and provides a brief analysis of a few pieces of evidence, it does not sufficiently 
discuss the evidence 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, we cannot meaningfully analyze whether the Director's determination for this prong was 
in error. Therefore, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish 
eligibility under the third Dhanasar prong. On remand, 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 
Based on the foregoing, 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 a member 
of the professions with an advanced degree. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. In addition, we 
are remanding to the Director to consider all three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework and 
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. 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