remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 8, 2024 In Re: 28582230 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a project manager in information technology and telecommunications systems, 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 Acting Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, 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 l&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). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Acting 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. 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree.1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 10l(a)(32) 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 I&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, 2 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 3 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar. 
The Petitioner states that she has "over 16 years of experience in information technology and 
telecommunication systems, orchestrating and managing teams in Project Management, Operations, 
and Customer Success areas." She states that her proposed endeavor is to continue her career "as a 
project manager and business strategist working with startups of different segments of the economy, 
helping them in the areas of technology, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity." 4 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of her education and experience, a professional 
plan and personal statement describing her proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national 
interest waiver, as well as recommendation and support letters, and an expert opinion letter. She also 
submitted industry reports on project management and evidence that technology development is a U.S. 
government initiative. 
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) dated August 24, 2022, 
allowing the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish her 
eligibility for the national interest waiver. Specifically, the RFE noted that the Petitioner had not 
established her eligibility for classification as an advanced degree professional, or any of the three 
prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 
Before the Petitioner responded to the RFE, the Acting Director issued a second RFE dated January 
5, 2023. The second RFE contradicted the first in that it stated that the Petitioner had demonstrated 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds a U.S. master of business administration degree awarded in 2021. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). 
4 We note that, subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the Petitioner filed another immigrant petition seeking 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. This immigrant petition has been approved. 
2 
her eligibility for classification as an advanced degree professional. The second RFE also requested 
evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner meets the first and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework 
but includes no discussion on the second prong. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's responses to both RFEs, the Acting Director determined that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, the Acting Director concluded that 
the Petitioner had not established that her proposed endeavor was of national importance, or that on 
balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. The Acting Director also 
made contradictory statements regarding the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, stating 
initially that the Petitioner had established that she is well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, but later in the decision stating that she had not. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Acting Director made several errors in this matter, including 
issuing two contradictory RFEs, and making contradictory statements regarding whether the Petitioner 
had met the second Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner farther asserts that the Acting Director did not 
provide an analysis of the evidence in the record or describe its deficiencies. 
In addressing each prong of the framework under Matter ofDhanasar, the Acting Director's decision 
lists the potential factors to be considered but does not apply any factors to the Petitioner's evidence 
or explain why the evidence was insufficient to establish eligibility under each prong. The Director 
must explain in writing the specific reasons for denial. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). Here, the Acting 
Director did not adequately explain how the evidence in the record led to the determination that the 
Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the 
labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The contradictory statements regarding the second prong of the Dhanasar framework in the RFEs, 
and whether the Petitioner had established that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed 
endeavor, limited her ability to address any deficiencies in the evidence in the record. Further the lack 
of detail in the denial notice did not give the Petitioner a sufficient opportunity to prepare a substantive 
appeal. Therefore, we will withdraw the Acting Director's decision and remand the matter for farther 
consideration. 
If appropriate, on remand the Director may issue a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny. 
The Director must then issue a new decision, addressing all the relevant evidence to decide the merits 
of the Petitioner's claim of eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
In concluding that the Petitioner submitted insufficient evidence to establish that a waiver of the 
classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest, the Acting Director did not provide sufficient detail to explain the reasons for denial as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4