remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Medical Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25690621 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 29, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a medical pract1t10ner and researcher, 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 that a waiver of the classification 's job offer requirement 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 ofChawath 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. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015), we conclude that a remand 
is warranted in this case because the Director's decision is insufficient for review. Specifically, the 
Director did not make a finding as to the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 
and, moreover , analyzed and discussed evidence that is not 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 an initial finding that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying 
EB-2 classification. Rather, the Director discussed only her request for a national interest waiver. In 
one section of the decision-discussing whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her 
endeavor-the Director did state that, "the petitioner's education renders her eligible for the 
underlying immigrant visa classification ... ," but he did not make a specific finding that she qualifies 
for EB-2 classification nor explain the evidence in the record used to reach this finding. 
The Petitioner claims to qualify for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional based 
upon her education in Nigeria. The initial I-140 Petition included a diploma awarding the Petitioner 
the degree of Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery from the University of in 2001 and a 
diploma awarding the Petitioner the degree of Master of Science in Public Health, General Public 
Health Option from the University o in 2018. The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) 
for, among other items, additional evidence to establish that the Petitioner has obtained the equivalent 
of an advanced degree in the United States. The Petitioner responded to the RFE, stating that she was 
submitting her academic transcripts and a World Education Service credential evaluation. However, 
the transcripts and credential evaluation are not present in the record. 
Because the Director's decision did not make a finding as to EB-2 classification nor acknowledge this 
missing documentation, the Petitioner did not have the opportunity to address or overcome this 
evidentiary issue on appeal. On remand, the Director should consider whether the 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 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 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, 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 their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
As to the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver, the Director in his decision described 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in a way that is not in accord with the evidence in the record. The 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as she described in her initial filing and reiterates on appeal, is to 
"work on prevention of maternal and infant micro and macro-nutrient deficiency through 
research .... " 
But the Director stated that the proposed endeavor is to "advance the transportation safety systems 
through the use of technologies and tools such as machine learning, data science, artificial intelligence 
and connected vehicle first class risk management and increasing the ability to identify safety 
threats .... " The Director also stated that the Petitioner "explained that her expertise and experience 
in Transportation industry will allow her to easily assist in the improvement of transportation safety 
in the U.S." However, as revealed by the record and confirmed by the Petitioner on appeal, her 
proposed endeavor does not relate to transportation safety systems. 
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). 
2 
Throughout the discussion of whether the Petitioner has established her endeavor's national 
importance, the Director referred to evidence not from this record and claims not made by the 
Petitioner. For example, he found that she did not demonstrate that her knowledge could be replicated 
"by other project managers to positively impact the transportation industry," although the Petitioner 
makes no claim to be a project manager and does not work in the transportation industry. Additionally, 
the Director referenced a business plan submitted by the Petitioner, although there is no business plan 
in the record. 
In the Director's discussion of whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her endeavor, he 
again did not sufficiently analyze or discuss the evidence in the record. Although he discussed some 
evidence that does relate to the Petitioner's evidence, the Director also stated that the Petitioner 
"submitted documentation of his professional memberships" and "evidence of his work on various 
projects," which does not appear to relate to the Petitioner's filing. 
As to the third prong of Dhanasar, whether the petitioner has established on balance that waiving the 
job offer requirement would benefit the United States, the Director mischaracterized the record by 
stating that the Petitioner submitted "copies of his personal statement, educational credentials, resume, 
testimonial letters and proof of income." The record does not contain evidence relating the Petitioner's 
income, but it does contain additional evidence including scholarly articles relating to the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. The Director made conclusory statements that the evidence did not establish 
eligibility, but he did not discuss the evidence that he weighed in performing the third prong's 
balancing analysis nor address the Petitioner's specific claims, if any, as to the third prong. Again, 
the lack of specific references to the evidence in the record and the alternating use of masculine and 
feminine pronouns make unclear whether the Director was analyzing the evidence submitted by the 
Petitioner. 
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