remanded EB-2 NIW Case: International Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20096055 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 5, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an international trade specialist, 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 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, noting that "[a]fter the [P]etitioner has 
established ... eligibility for second preference classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the [Act], 
[U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] may grant a national interest waiver if the [P]etitioner 
demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that [the criteria established in Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), have been satisfied]." The Director proceeded to conduct aDhanasar 
analysis without first concluding whether the Petitioner qualifies for a second preference classification 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 1 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Director did not fully adjudicate the issues and that she is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
While we conduct de nova review on appeal, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case 
because the Director's decision is insufficient for review. As presently constituted, the record does 
not establish whether the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
1 In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted that the Petitioner had not submitted the required evidence for the 
benefit sought, and requested documentation demonstrating that she is eligible for classification as a professional holding 
an advanced degree. Specifically , the Director requested an official academic record showing that the Petitioner has a 
United States advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree, or an official academic record showing that the Petitioner 
has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree accompanied by evidence in the fonn of letters 
from current or former employer(s) showing that she has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience 
in the specialty. The record demonstrates that the Petitioner complied with the Director 's request; however , the Director 
declined to evaluate the evidence submitted in response to the RFE and did not determine in the denial decision whether 
the Petitioner qualifies for the requested second preference classification . On appeal, the Petitioner correctly notes that 
the Director "omitted to state the Petitioner 's qualification for the requested classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, although each adjudicative element of the benefit should have been discussed and reasoned 
by the Service." 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to conduct a final merits determination of 
the advanced degree issue and enter a new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence 
considered pertinent to the new determination and any other issue. As such, we express no opinion 
regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
2