remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 4, 2024 In Re: 30646279 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an electrical engineering researcher, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. 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. 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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on 
appeal under 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 nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&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. 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates EB-2 eligibility, they must then establish 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 USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) the individual is well positioned to advance their proposed 
endeavor; and (3) on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
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). 
The Petitioner earned a Ph.D. in electrical and computer engineering at the in 2013. 
In 2016, he began working at Pakistan, first as an 
assistant professor and then, starting in 2022, as an associate professor. Also in 2022, he began 
working forl Iin Saudi Arabia, first as a remote 
consultant and then as a research scientist. The Petitioner's research involves wireless communication, 
cyber security, and artificial intelligence tools for health care. The Petitioner filed the present petition 
in March 2023. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: "The Decision in this case is deeply confusing and essentially 
incoherent. ... There is virtually no discussion of the evidence ofrecord, beyond simply listing some 
of the evidence ... , and little to no explanation." A review of the Director's decision shows that 
discussion moves back and forth between the three prongs of the Dhanasar national interest 
framework, consisting mostly ofbackground statements about that framework rather than a description 
of the Petitioner's evidence and the required analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of that evidence. 
The Director stated several conclusions without explaining how the evidence of record led to those 
conclusions. For example, the Director stated: "the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, but not 
national imp01iance as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework." The decision contains 
no further merits discussion of the first Dhanasar prong. Elsewhere in the decision, the Director 
briefly listed some of the materials in the record, but did not further discuss any of the submitted 
evidence or explain how it met or did not meet the requirements of the Dhanasar framework. 
In a request for evidence, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had established that he qualifies 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. In the denial notice, the 
Director stated, without further elaboration: "the petitioner has not established that he qualifies for 
the requested classification." 
The Director must explain the specific reasons for denial. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). In this 
instance, the denial notice does not identify the reasons for denial in enough detail to give the Petitioner 
an opportunity to file a substantive appeal to properly address any denial grounds. Therefore, we will 
remand the matter in order for the Director to issue a more detailed and cohesive decision on the 
petition. 
Because responsibility for the initial decision lies with the Director, we will not adjudicate the petition 
in the first instance here. Nevertheless, our review of the record raises issues that warrant attention. 
An undertaking may have national importance because it has national or even global implications 
within a particular field. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. These implications could be 
economic but need not be so. The petitioner in Dhanasar established the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor with evidence of "the potential significance of U.S. advances in this area of 
research and development." Therefore, when considering whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
has national importance, the Director should not limit consideration solely to economic factors such 
as job creation. 
As the Petitioner has observed, the USCIS Policy Manual has set forth "Specific Evidentiary 
Considerations for Persons with Advanced Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, or 
2 
Mathematics (STEM) Fields." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(2). These 
provisions do not guarantee that STEM researchers qualify for the national interest waiver, nor do they 
diminish the Petitioner's evidentiary burden, but they bear attention and consideration. 
The Petitioner stated that he seeks a tenure-track associate professorship at the 
I I or "a ve1y similar position" elsewhere. In response to a request for evidence the Petitioner 
stated that he applied for positions at thel land, secondarily, atl I 
I. 2 The Director must consider whether the Petitioner has established that thel I 
I Ior any other U.S. university has expressed an interest in hiring the Petitioner in that 
capacity. Such evidence, or the lack of it, would be directly relevant to Dhanasar' s requirement that 
a petitioner must consider "the interest of ... relevant entities." Id. at 890. The Petitioner asserted 
that his "proposed endeavor is separate from their proposed employment," but the Petitioner's 
meaning is unclear; a petitioner cannot self-employ as a tenure track assistant professor. Accordingly, 
the lack of demonstrated interest from a specific employer, seeking to employ the Petitioner at a level 
commensurate to the proposed endeavor, may present an obstacle to showing that the petitioner is well 
positioned to advance that endeavor. 
The Petitioner has submitted evidence of substantial activity as a peer reviewer. The Petitioner 
claimed that "only the most highly esteemed researchers in the field are invited to evaluate the work 
of their peers." The burden is on the Petitioner to submit evidence to support this claim. Statements 
in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary 
weight. Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998). The record shows that the Petitioner served 
as a peer reviewer as early as June 2010 when he was a first-year graduate student. At that time, he 
had not yet published any articles ofhis own. The Petitioner's documented participation in peer review 
at that very early stage does not appear to be consistent with his claim that peer review is limited to 
"only the most highly esteemed researchers in the field." 
The Petitioner has established that some of his work was funded by the U.S. National Science 
Foundation. Not all government grant funding is equally persuasive with regard to the second prong 
of the national interest framework. It is significant that the petitioner in Dhanasar "initiated or is the 
primary award contact on several funded grant proposals and that he is the only listed researcher on 
many of the grants." Id. at 893 n.11. 
The Director's decision did not identify specific deficiencies in the record or otherwise explain the 
specific reasons for denial. Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's decision for the reasons 
explained above. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2 The record shows that, in March 2023, the Petitioner applied for a position at the ________ as a 
postdoctoral researcher, rather than a tenure-track assistant professor. The record does not show that the university offered 
the Petitioner the position. The Petitioner also sent an email inquiry to a professor at but the record 
does not show the Petitioner applied for any position there. Rather, the Petitioner indicated that he might submit a copy 
of his resume if the university had an appropriate position available. The Petitioner did not show that any further 
communication took place. 
3