remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 25, 2023 In Re: 26953571 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a systems developer, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(B)(i) . U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, 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. 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. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner shows: 
1 See also 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) . 
• 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 
As noted, the Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. However, the Director determined that the record did not establish her eligibility 
under the first and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework, and therefore found her ineligible for a 
waiver of the job offer requirement. For the reasons discussed below, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter to the Director for entry of a new decision. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong ofDhanasar focuses on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate her 
proposed endeavor had national importance, and did not make a determination regarding its substantial 
merit. 
Regarding the proposed endeavor's substantial merit, the Director stated as follows: 
The [P]etitioner provided a letter froml IProfessor - Computer 
Science, Information Systems, & Cyber Security, I I University, I I 
Oregon, who opines that the [P]etitioner satisfies the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
While the letter may help clarify or explain the [P]etitioner's field of endeavor, 
experience, and achievements, the letter does not exempt the [P]etitioner from 
establishing eligibility with independent, documentary evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that "the wording is unclear and does not provide the reason for denial 
regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and its substantial merit, which impedes the Petitioner 
from discussing the terms and motivation for denial." She further notes that "there is no specific 
mention stating whether the criterion relating to substantial merit was met or not." In addition, she 
asserts that she submitted evidence and provided detailed information about her proposed endeavor 
that was not considered by the Director. 
We agree with the Petitioner that the decision did not contain a proper analysis of the proposed 
endeavor's substantial merit or a sufficient discussion explaining why she had not satisfied this 
requirement. An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow 
the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful 
appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also 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). The Director's decision lacks a 
detailed analysis of the evidence submitted in support of the petition with respect to the proposed 
endeavor's substantial merit, and does not acknowledge the evidence the Petitioner submitted in 
response to a request for evidence (RFE). 
2 
Regarding the proposed endeavor's national importance, the Petitioner asserts that she submitted 
sufficient evidence to establish that her endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects, 
including national or global implications. Upon review, the language in the Director's decision 
regarding the proposed endeavor's national importance was copied almost verbatim from the RFE .2 
Aside from stating, "It appears that the [P]etitioner will work as an Information Technology 
professional," there is no specific discussion of the proposed endeavor or explanation for the Director's 
conclusion that the proposed endeavor does not have national importance . Moreover, as noted by the 
Petitioner, the decision did not address the documentation submitted in response to the RFE, which 
included a professional plan and a 17-page statement exclusively discussing how the proposed 
endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects and national or global implications. Given 
the amount and type of evidence submitted in support of the proposed endeavor's national importance, 
both initially and in response to the RFE, we find the Director's brief analysis did not adequately 
inform the Petitioner of the reasons for concluding that the proposed endeavor did not have national 
importance. 
The Director should analyze the Petitioner's evidence to determine if her proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance. If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's 
documentation does not meet the requirements of Dhanasar 's first prong, the decision should discuss 
the insufficiencies in the evidence and adequately explain the reasons for ineligibility . 
B. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. While the 
Director's decision identifies some of the factors to consider when determining whether a petitioner 
qualifies under Dhanasar 's third prong and indicates that the Petitioner had not established eligibility 
under this prong, the Director did not adequately discuss the evidence and sufficiently explain the 
basis for this determination . If the Director determines that the Petitioner's documentation does not 
meet this prong, the decision should address all of the Petitioner's arguments and evidence, and explain 
the relative decisional weight given to each balancing factor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed , the Director 's decision is withdrawn . On remand, the Director should 
review all evidence submitted to date (including the brief and the documentation submitted on appeal) 
and analyze the Petitioner's contentions and evidence to determine if she meets all three prongs set 
forth in the Dhanasar framework. The Director may request any additional evidence considered 
pertinent to the new decision . 
2 The language discussing the proposed endeavor 's substantial merit in the denial was also copied virtually verbatim from 
the RFE. 
3 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4