remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Maritime Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 12, 2023 In Re: 28427911 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a maritime transportation and port operations specialist, seeks second preference 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an 
individual of exceptional ability, 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, but the 
Petitioner 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 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 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. 
If 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 pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as 
matter of discretion, 1 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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies 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. Upon 
de novo review, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case because the Director's decision 
lacks sufficient analysis and discussion of the evidence in the record. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to "continue his activities as a Maritime Transport and Port 
Operations Specialist" and share his knowledge in the field of maritime transportation gained by 
working at I Ifor over 14 years. The 
Petitioner proposed to provide consultation and training to any U.S. businesses to "ensure profitable 
commercial relations and foreign trade through efficient, safe, and reliable maritime transport." The 
Petitioner also stated that he will assist American companies in building business strategies in 
multidisciplinary areas, such as "maritime law, commercial law, international law, economy and 
accounting." 2 
Our exercise of discretion to waive the requirement of a job offer, and therefore a labor certification, 
requires adherence to all three of the Dhanasar's prongs. Here, the Director did not include a 
determination on substantial merit and national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor under the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. The Director also did not discuss the evidence in concluding that 
the Petitioner did not meet the Dhanasar' s third prong. An officer must fully explain the reasons for 
denying a visa petition to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow 
us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i). 
In evaluating the Dhanasar's first prong on remand, the Director should analyze the evidence and 
conclude whether the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit. 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director should also analyze the evidence and conclude whether the Petitioner's endeavor has 
national importance. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, 
as required by the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 See the Petitioner's letter dated December 15, 2022, and his professional plan dated October 2022, submitted in response 
to the Director's RFE. 
2 
such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and 
endeavors that have broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has 
other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 
889-90. 
The Director should consider if the record sufficiently describes and supports that the Petitioner has 
innovative methodologies or techniques that will impact the field of maritime transportation broadly, 
rising to the level of national importance. The Director should also consider if the Petitioner's 
endeavor as a as a maritime transportation and port specialist has a significant potential to produce 
substantial positive economic effects in an economically depressed region or for the nation and 
whether the record contains corroborating evidence of such claims. 
As to the third prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Director stated the law and relevant 
considerations in performing the third prong's balancing analysis. However, the Director did not 
discuss the evidence that he weighed in balancing those considerations nor address the Petitioner's 
specific claims regarding his eligibility under the third prong. On remand, the Director should address 
all of the Petitioners arguments and evidence, and explain the relative decisional weight given to each 
balancing factor. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) 
(finding that a decision must folly explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a 
meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for farther 
consideration of the record, including the claims and documentation submitted on appeal, and entry of 
a new decision to determine whether the Petitioner meets each prong under Dhanasar. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3