remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Finance And Business Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 12, 2023 In Re: 28467350 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business administrator and financial analyst, 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, 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 Nebraska 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 ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc. , 26 I&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. Next , a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner shows: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• 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, a business administrator, proposes to work in the United States as a financial analyst. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established his eligibility as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree based on his possession of a U.S. master's degree in business 
administration. However, 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 concluded that 
the Petitioner's description of the proposed endeavor was vague because it described the financial 
analyst field and therefore was insufficient to establish that the endeavor had substantial merit or 
national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was "extremely generic, vague, which 
avoids the right of contest," and farther contends that the decision "did not cite lack of evidence or 
even the real reason why the application was denied." The Petitioner farther asserts that his 
professional plan provided a "complete, specific, and clear explanation" of his proposed endeavor. 
Collectively considering the evidence submitted prior to the Director's decision, we agree with the 
Petitioner that his evidence was not given due consideration. An officer must folly explain the reasons 
for denying a visa petition in order 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)(l)(i); see 
also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must folly explain the 
reasons for denial to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on 
appeal). While the Director listed the evidence submitted in support of the petition and in response to 
the request for evidence (RFE) in the denial, the decision does not adequately address the 
documentation in the record. 
The Petitioner provided a professional plan, letters of recommendation, an expert opinion letter, and 
articles on finance and investment in support of his eligibility under the first prong. The Director 
should analyze this evidence to determine whether the record sufficiently demonstrates the endeavor 
has substantial merit and national importance. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range 
of areas, such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. 2 In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. See Dhanasar, 26 I&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. 3 The Director 
2 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(D)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
3 See id. 
2 
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 
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. Id. at 890. 
For Dhanasar 's second prong, the Director again concluded that the Petitioner's description of the 
proposed endeavor described the financial analyst field and therefore was insufficient to demonstrate 
that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. However, the decision did 
not sufficiently explain the basis for the determination. The decision does not describe the evidence 
reviewed by the Director to make the determination, nor does the decision analyze any evidence 
submitted by the Petitioner. The Director simply concluded that the record did not establish that the 
Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he submitted abundant evidence to demonstrate that he is well 
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner reiterates his qualifications and 
commitment to advance his endeavor, and points specifically to evidence including his curriculum 
vitae, academic record, employment history, certifications, recognition for achievements, and 
memberships. The Petitioner farther highlights letters ofrecommendation and an expert opinion letter 
submitted in support of his eligibility, and concludes that all of this evidence, submitted initially and 
in response to the Director's RFE, is sufficient to satisfy this prong. The Director, however, did not 
discuss or acknowledge any of this evidence or explain why such evidence was insufficient. 
Again, an officer must folly 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 ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786. Here, the Director's decision 
did not adequately address the evidence submitted with the petition or in response to the RFE in 
support of the second prong. The Director should analyze the specific content of the record to 
determine if the Petitioner's evidence 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, 
3 
and thus of a labor certification," noting that he could not satisfy the third prong because he had not 
satisfied prongs one and two. However, the Director did not discuss the evidence weighed in balancing 
those considerations or address the Petitioner's specific claims 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. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons outlined above, 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