remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Inorganic Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 20, 2024 In Re: 33944230 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a researcher, 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 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 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. 
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. 
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 that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
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) . 
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. The Director determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor's 
national importance, that he is well positioned to advanced it, and that, on balance, it would benefit 
the United States to waive the job offer requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director 
failed to correctly identify and adequately assess the proposed endeavor. Upon review, we agree with 
the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor is to continue his research in developing "state-of-­
the-art methods for the construction and design of new substrates and materials for high-performance 
solar cells in order to improve renewable energy technology and create advanced nanomaterials." 
According to his resume, the Petitioner holds a Ph.D. in inorganic chemistry from I I
I I in Iran. In support of his petition, the Petitioner submitted his curriculum vitae, academic 
records, recommendation letters, 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 evidence, the Director stated that the Petitioner intends to work as a researcher in the field of 
inorganic chemistry. In the decision, the Director once again described the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor as seeking to work as a researcher in the field of inorganic chemistry. After listing the 
submitted documents and without a meaningful analysis of the evidence, the Director concluded that 
the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance. We, therefore, 
conclude that the Director erred by not considering the Petitioner's evidence as submitted in the record. 
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). 
2 
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 not well positioned 
to advance the proposed endeavor. On remand, the Director should review and evaluate the record to 
determine whether the Petitioner is 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 
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 record did not demonstrate "the widespread benefits associated with" 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of working as a researcher in inorganic chemistry. On remand, the 
Director should re-evaluate 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 
3 
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