remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Finance And Investment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 25, 2024 In Re: 30211836 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial and investment analyst and consultant, 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 the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner qualifies for the requested EB-2 classification or that he is eligible for a national 
interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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). While we conduct de novo review on 
appeal, Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015), we conclude that a remand 
is warranted in this case because the Director's decision is insufficient for review. The decision lacks 
analysis and discussion of the evidence in the record and reaches conclusory findings with respect to 
the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. Accordingly, 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 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. An advanced degree is 
any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's 
degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 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. EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
The Director denied the petition, in part, based on a determination that the Petitioner did not establish 
his eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as 
an individual of exceptional ability in the arts, sciences or business. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the previously submitted evidence was sufficient to 
demonstrate his eligibility as an advanced degree professional. The Petitioner also questions the 
Director's decision to address his eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, noting he never 
articulated a claim that he is eligible for that classification. 
The Petitioner provided an official academic record for his foreign degree and a professional 
evaluation of his academic credentials demonstrating that he has attained the foreign equivalent of a 
bachelor's degree in business administration. Further, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has more than five years of progressive 
post-baccalaureate work experience in the field of business development. While the Director 
determined that the experience letters the Petitioner submitted did not comply with all requirements 
of 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(l ), that regulation also states that if primary evidence is unavailable, "other 
documentation relating to the [individual's] experience ... will be considered." Here, the Petitioner 
provided a credible explanation for his submission of secondary evidence of his work experience. 
Further, the evidence provided was sufficient to meet his burden of proof and demonstrate that he has 
an advanced degree as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(k). Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner did not establish his eligibility for EB-2 classification. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established that it would be in the national interest to 
grant him a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement that applies to the advanced degree 
professional classification. 
In evaluating the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor to provide services as a financial 
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 
in nature). 
2 
and investment analyst and consultant, but did not establish the national importance of the endeavor, 
that he is well-positioned to advance it, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to 
waive the job offer requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not evaluate most of the evidence submitted to 
establish his eligibility under the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework and applied inappropriate 
standards that are not addressed in Dhanasar or in the applicable USCIS Policy Manual guidance. As 
such, the Petitioner maintains that the decision does not provide an adequate explanation for the denial 
of the petition. 
Upon review, the Petitioner's assertions are persuasive. An officer must fully explain the specific 
reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i). This explanation should be sufficient 
to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for 
meaningful appellate review. See, e.g. Matter ofM-P- 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a 
decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Here, for the reasons discussed below, the 
Director's decision was insufficient and did not allow the Petitioner a meaningful opportunity to 
address any deficiencies on appeal. 
In evaluating whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance, the Director 
acknowledged that he submitted a business plan and personal statement, but nevertheless concluded 
the petitioner "did not provide a detailed description of the proposed endeavor." This conclusion led 
to an inadequate discussion of the evidence in the record submitted to establish the endeavor's national 
importance. 
The record reflects the Petitioner submitted two personal statements in which he provided consistent 
and detailed descriptions of his proposed endeavor. In addition, as acknowledged by the Director, he 
provided a business plan for the financial and investment consulting company he is operating in 
Florida. The Director's determination that the Petitioner did not provide a detailed description of the 
proposed endeavor was not adequately explained and is not supported by the record. 
Further, the Director did not discuss most of the evidence submitted to demonstrate the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor, which included, but was not limited to: the business plan for the 
Petitioner's Florida company; two expert opinion letters; letters of interest from other professionals in 
the field; articles providing background on the Petitioner's industry and occupation; and evidence 
intended to support the Petitioner's claim that his endeavor will have substantial positive economic 
effects, will enhance societal welfare, and will impact a matter that is the subject of national initiatives. 
These factors are relevant to a determination regarding the potential prospective impact of his proposed 
endeavor under the Dhanasar framework and should be weighed as part of the first prong analysis. In 
fact, the Director had specifically instructed the Petitioner to address such factors in his response to 
the RFE, but then failed to give those claims due consideration. If the Director concludes that the 
Petitioner does not meet the national importance requirement under Dhanasar's first prong, the 
decision should discuss the deficiencies in the evidence and adequately explain the reasons for 
ineligibility. 
3 
In addressing whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under 
Dhanasar' s second prong, the Director applied standards that are outside the scope of the analytical 
framework established in Dhanasar. In doing so, the Director overlooked or was dismissive of 
evidence relevant to the second prong analysis, which requires consideration of the individual's 
education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related efforts, whether they have a model or 
plan for future activities, any progress the individual has made towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor, and evidence of the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities 
or individuals. 
The record reflects that although the Petitioner submitted evidence related to all these factors, the 
Director did not properly weigh this evidence in the second prong analysis. Rather, the Director's 
analysis under the second prong discusses appears to be based, in part, on a determination that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate "that he has influenced the field beyond the normal expectations of a 
financial and investment analyst and consultant." The Director also questioned whether the Petitioner's 
social media-related evidence was indicative of "national importance," noting "the record lacks 
comparative evidence showing the follows or posts of other business consultants who are of exceptional 
ability in the [Petitioner's] field." The Petitioner is not required to demonstrate an exceptional level of 
influence in his field or "national importance" under Dhanasar' s second prong, nor is he required to 
submit comparisons between himself and persons of exceptional ability in the field. 
In addition, although the Director briefly mentioned the Petitioner's letters of recommendation, the 
decision is dismissive of the letters because they did not "explain how [the Petitioner's] numerous 
personal accomplishments constitute recognition of achievements and significant contributions to the 
field ofbusiness." The Petitioner is not required to demonstrate such recognition to establish eligibility 
for a national interest waiver under Dhanasar's second prong. It appears the Director erroneously 
applied the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), which is one of the six evidentiary criteria 
applicable to persons seeking classification as individuals of exceptional ability. 
The Director should analyze the specific content of the record to determine if the evidence 
demonstrates that the Petitioner is, more likely than not, 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. 
Finally, in analyzing whether it would benefit the United States to waive the requirement of a job offer 
under Dhanasar's third prong, the Director stated the law and the relevant considerations in 
performing the third prong's balancing analysis but did not discuss the evidence weighed in balancing 
those considerations. Without a proper evaluation of the factors identified inDhanasar''s third prong, 
the Director's determination was conclusory. If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's 
documentation does not meet this prong, the decision should address his arguments and evidence, and 
explain the relative decisional weight given to each balancing factor. 
While the evidence ofrecord may ultimately be insufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility 
for the requested national interest waiver, the Director's determination that he did not satisfy any of 
the three prongs did not adequately address the evidence and arguments submitted, did not discuss 
4 
most of the relevant factors set forth in Dhanasar, applied inapplicable standards, and therefore did 
not sufficiently explain the reasons for denial. 
Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for further consideration 
and entry of a new decision. On remand, the Director should review the entire record, including the 
Petitioner's appeal, and determine whether he has established eligibility under each of the three prongs 
of the Dhanasar framework. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5