remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Econometrics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 03, 2024 In Re: 34683914 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, as well 
as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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 Petitioner qualified 
for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had 
not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. Because 
this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate 
showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
1 See 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) . 
that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the 
noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a researcher. The Director found that the Petitioner 
qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether 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. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor's Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit and that he is well-positioned to advance it. The Director determined, however, that the 
Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance, and that, on balance, it would 
benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the 
Director "abused their discretion by failing to properly analyze evidence under the preponderance of 
the evidence standard, within the NIW framework." 
The Petitioner states that he currently holds an assistant teaching professor position at 
I I His proposed endeavor involves applying "advanced financial econometrics and modeling 
techniques to analyze financial market instability, the banking sector's vulnerability, and the financial 
aspects of happiness among U.S. residents in order to address real-world challenges within the U.S. 
financial markets and market intermediaries." According to his resume, the Petitioner holds three 
degrees from the _________ a doctoral degree in economics, a master's degree in 
statistics, and a master's degree in economics. The Petitioner also states that he has a Ph.D. in 
economic sciences, a master's degree in finance and banking, and a bachelor's degree in economics 
from the I Iin Serbia. The Petitioner explains that his assistant professor 
position at the I I will enable him to continue his research in financial market 
volatility, U.S. banking industry stability, and the relationship between financial inclusion, resiliency, 
and the happiness of U.S. citizens using high-frequency datasets. 
In support of his petition, the Petitioner submitted his curriculum vitae, academic records, personal 
statement, and industry reports and articles. In addition, the Petitioner submitted recommendation 
letters from academics familiar with the Petitioner's work and independent advisory opinions, as well 
as evidence of his peer-reviewed journals and publications along with related citations. 
In evaluating Dhanasar 's first prong, the Director concluded that while the Petitioner demonstrated 
the proposed endeavor's substantial merit, he failed to establish its national importance. In the request 
for additional evidence, the Director stated that the Petitioner intends to work as an assistant professor 
2 
in the field of mathematical modeling and that the Petitioner "failed to provide specific insight as to 
what the beneficiary intends to work on as an Assistant Professor in the field of mathematical 
modeling." The Director also noted that the record lacked sufficient information regarding the number 
of individuals the Petitioner's business plans to hire, train, or support, and that there was no evidence 
showing that that the wages for current or prospective employees would have substantial positive 
economic effects, such as generating revenue or creating jobs. In denying the petition, the Director 
found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as an economist in the field of financial econometrics 
was not nationally important. The Director reiterated that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient 
information regarding the number of individuals his business plans to hire, train, and support, and that 
his business would offer wages that would have substantial positive economic effects. The Director 
also concluded that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his business "stands to impact the regional 
or national population at a level consistent with having national importance." 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director misstated the proposed endeavor and failed to 
properly analyze the endeavor. We agree. The Director mischaracterized the proposed endeavor, and 
thus neither meaningfully nor correctly analyzed its national importance. An officer must fully explain 
the reasons for denying the application in order to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the 
decision and to afford us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. Cf Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N 
Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that an Immigration Judge must fully explain the reasons for denying a 
motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
On remand, the Director should provide a full and complete analysis of the Petitioner's specific 
proposed endeavor and determine whether it is of national importance. If the Director concludes that 
the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor does not meet the substantial merit or national importance 
requirements of Dhanasar's first prong, the decision should adequately explain the reasons for 
ineligibility. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the 
noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner was well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor. On remand, the Director should review and evaluate the record to 
determine whether the Petitioner is indeed well positioned to advance his specific proposed endeavor. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
3 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
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. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner has not shown that "he presents a significant benefit to the 
United States through his proposed endeavor as an [ e ]conomist," and 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. 
On remand, the Director should reevaluate the Petitioner's claims and evidence under the third prong 
of the Dhanasar framework, considering the revised analysis of the first two prongs as discussed 
above. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons outlined above, we are withdrawing the Director's decision and remanding the matter 
so that the Director may determine whether the Petitioner has established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The Director should properly apply all three prongs of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework 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 and we express no 
opinion regarding this matter's ultimate disposition. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4