remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Hospitality And Event Consultancy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 25, 2024 In Re: 31108908 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
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 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 reaches conclusory findings. Accordingly, we will withdraw it and remand 
the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that her proposed endeavor is not to work as a systems engineer, as 
the Director stated, but rather to establish a hospitality and event consultancy company. The Petitioner 
also contends that the decision simply listed the evidence without addressing its contents and did not 
discuss the applicability of the relevant law to the evidence or explain the specific reasons for the 
denial. 
We agree. An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i) . A decision denying a benefit must include the specific reasons for denial 
and sufficiently explain the underlying deficiencies to allow a 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, the decision did not meet these requirements . The decision's lack of any substantive analysis 
prevented the Petitioner from filing an appeal that meaningfully addressed it. Consequently, we 
hereby withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter so that the Director may issue a new 
decision that considers the Petitioner's evidence carefully. 
On remand, the Director should consider the evidence of record and articulate whether that evidence 
establishes the Petitioner's eligibility for the benefit she seeks. If the Director concludes that the 
Petitioner's documentation does not meet the requirements of a specific eligibility criterion, the 
decision should discuss the insufficiencies in the evidence and adequately explain the reasons for 
ineligibility. 
For the above reasons, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for further 
consideration and entry of a new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence 
considered pertinent to the determination prior to issuing a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2