remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Information Systems And Data Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 03, 2024 In Re: 31845610 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a research assistant in information systems and data management, seeks second 
preference 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 EB-2 immigrant 
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, 1 but she 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 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). 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. 
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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 (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, 2 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 The Petitioner has a master's degree in management infonnation systems from ______ in Maryland. 
2 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). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner's primary contention on appeal is that the Director did not properly adjudicate the facts 
of the case. The Petitioner asserts that the Director incorrectly observed in the request for evidence 
(RFE) that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is in the "field of travel" and erroneously referred to the 
Petitioner's consulting company as I I Although the Petitioner questioned the Director's 
erroneous references in her RFE response, she claims that the Director denied her case without 
addressing her concerns. Subsequently, the Petitioner contends that the Director's decision failed to 
analyze or incorporate the evidence as submitted in the record and she did not receive "a fair review 
of her entire case." 
The record indicates that the Petitioner intends to work as "an Information Technologist with 
specialization and focus on [sic] information systems management" and develop "new models to 
advance security and efficiency in data management and information systems with a focus on the 
financial services sector . . . with a goal of preventing data loss and mismanagement, fraud, and other 
related occurrences." In responding to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner stated that her long-term 
goal is to provide technology solutions to start up and small businesses through her own consulting 
firm, and "contribute to the overall security of the United States' business 
ecosystem while also empowering businesses of all sizes to protect themselves against data 
mismanagement and insecurity." 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case. We agree with the 
Petitioner that the Director incorrectly described her proposed endeavor in the RFE, contrary to the 
evidence ofrecord. More importantly, the decision simply identified the Petitioner's profession as a 
research assistant without fully describing or discussing the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as 
presented in the record. 
Moreover, the decision lacks sufficient analysis and discussion of the evidence. In evaluating national 
importance of the endeavor under the first prong of Dhanasar, the Director made conclusory 
statements without addressing the evidence on record. In discussing the second prong, whether the 
Petitioner is well- ositioned to advance her endeavor, the Director referred to the Petitioner's degrees 
from the which appear unrelated to 
the Petitioner's filing. As to the third prong of Dhanasar, the decision similarly lacks specific 
discussion of the Petitioner's evidence and refers to claims not made by the Petitioner. For example, 
the Director discussed occupational shortages even though the Petitioner did not raise the issue of 
labor shortages in her field of endeavor anywhere in the record. 
Overall, the errors noted above, particularly the mischaracterization of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor, and the lack of discussion of the specific evidence in the record, make it unclear whether 
the Director fully analyzed the evidence submitted by the Petitioner and based the decision solely on 
that evidence. An officer must explain the specific reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
2 
§ 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). 
Because the Director did not sufficiently identify the Petitioner's endeavor and meaningfully analyze 
the evidence before finding the Petitioner ineligible under the Dhanasar framework, we will withdraw 
the decision. On remand, the Director should review the entire record in considering whether the 
Petitioner has sufficiently identified her proposed endeavor and whether she has established eligibility 
under each of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 
This matter will be remanded to the Director to determine if the Petitioner has established eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. 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. 
3