remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing And Data Analytics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24993580 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 22, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a marketing and data analytics consultant , seeks classification as a member of the 
profession s 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. 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 the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for a waiver of the job offer requirement 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 . 
Matte r of Chawath e, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). While we conduct de novo review on 
appeal, Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 53 7, 53 7 n. 2 (AAO 2015), we conclude that a remand 
is warranted in this case because the Director's decision is insufficient for review. The Director did 
not make clear findings as to each of the eligibility requirements for a national interest waiver petition. 
Moreover, the decision lacks sufficient analysis and discussion of the evidence in the record. We will 
withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the 
following analysis. 
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. We note, 
however, that the Director did not make a finding as to whether the Petitioner qualifies for the 
underlying EB-2 classification. 
The Petitioner claims to qualify for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional based 
upon her education in Brazil. The record contains an evaluation of the Petitioner's academic 
credentials concluding that she has obtained the equivalent of U.S. master of business administration 
(MBA) degree in management from a regionally accredited college or university in the United States 
based upon her completion of a "Pos-Graduacao Lato Sensu" course from the ____ 
I I in Brazil. 
However, according to the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers 
(AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), 1 "[p]]rofessional development and 
specialization programs are considered lato sensus (wide sense graduate-level programs) and follow 
independent legislation. Such programs lead toward professional certificates, not graduate degrees." 2 
The database contrasts this with "strictu sensus (strict sense graduate-level programs)" that follow 
minimum national guidelines and do lead toward graduate degrees. 3 
The evaluator acknowledges that the database does not specifically discuss the Petitioner's degree, but 
states that the equivalence finding is supported by the fact that other graduate programs of similar 
duration are found to represent a level of education comparable to a master's degree in the United 
States. However, regardless of the length of the program, the evaluator does not address the distinction 
between lato sensus and strictu sensus programs in Brazil nor explain why this lato sensu course 
should be considered equivalent to a U.S. master's degree. 
In addition to the evaluation, the Petitioner submitted other information regarding the university and 
its programs. On remand, the Director should consider whether this evidence establishes that the 
Petitioner has obtained the equivalent of an advanced degree within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A) or has otherwise established eligibility for the underlying visa classification as an 
advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either an advanced degree professional 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 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 USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, 4 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. 
As to the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver, the Director did not identify nor 
describe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in his decision. He also did not make a finding as to 
1 We consider EDGE to be a reliable source of information about foreign credential equivalencies. See Confluence Intern., 
Inc. v. Holder, Civil No. 08-2665 (DSD-JJG), 2009 WL 825793 (D. Minn. Mar. 27, 2009); Tisco Group, Inc. v. Napolitano, 
No. 09-cv-l 0072, 2010 WL 3464314 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2010); Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. No. 09-13605, 2010 WL 
3325442 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2010). See also Viraj, LLC v. Holder, No. 2: 12-CV-00127-RWS, 2013 WL 1943431 (N.D. 
Ga. May 18, 2013). 
2 See https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country brazil for information regarding the education system in Brazil. 
3 Id. 
4 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). 
2 
whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as part of the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. Further, although it appears that he intended to find that the Petitioner meets the second 
prong of Dhanasar - that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor - he did not clearly 
do so, and he did not discuss or analyze any of the evidence in the record regarding this prong. 
The Director did make the finding that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility under either the third 
prong of Dhanasar or the national importance element of the first prong. However, he did not 
sufficiently analyze or discuss the evidence in the record in making these findings. As to the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor, other than stating that the Petitioner "submitted approximately 
30 articles," the Director did not discuss the evidence at all. Similarly, as to the third prong of 
Dhanasar, the Director stated the law and the relevant considerations in performing the third prong's 
balancing analysis and concluded that "[t]he record does not demonstrate the widespread benefits 
associated with work aimed at being a Market Research Analyst." However, the Director did not 
discuss the evidence he weighed in balancing those considerations nor address the Petitioner's specific 
claims, if any, as to the 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. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i); see also Matter of M-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). Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision based on this deficiency. On remand, the Director should review the entire record in 
considering whether the Petitioner has sufficiently identified her proposed endeavor and whether she 
has established eligibility under each of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to determine if the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for the underlying classification and for a national interest waiver and to enter a new 
decision. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new 
determination. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on 
remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3