remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Nautical Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 25, 2024 In Re: 30559367 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the classification and 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). 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 Petitioner provides further clarification on appeal regarding her 
qualification for the underlaying EB-2 visa classification. In addition, a remand is warranted in this 
case because the Director's decision is insufficient for review as the decision lacks analysis and 
discussion of the evidence in the record and reaches conclusory findings with respect to the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. Accordingly, 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 ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) 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. UNDERLYING EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
The Petitioner claims to qualify for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional since she 
was awarded a bachelor's degree in Nautical Science from the I I I Ian educational division of the I I The Petitioner submitted an academic 
evaluation. In addition, the Petitioner submitted letters from employers documenting over five years 
of the Petitioner's professional experience. In the denial decision, the Director noted that the 
evaluation report did not state whether the Petitioner completed the equivalent of high school before 
entering college and stated that the program length was four years, but the Petitioner's school 
transcripts only indicated three academic years. On appeal, the Petitioner submits new evidence 
regarding the length of the academic program she completed at the 
I that provides further clarification regarding her degree program . A remand is warranted in this 
case because it is material to the claim of whether the Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates that she is 
an advanced degree progressional, and the Director should review this clarifying documentation. 
Further, the Petitioner indicated that she also is eligible as an individual of exceptional ability. In 
order to classify as an individual of exception ability, the petitioner must present documentation that 
satisfies at least three of the six categories of initial evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The 
Director concluded that the Petitioner met one of the six criteria related to establishing exceptional 
ability. However, the Director did not discuss the evidence in the record for two of the criteria. The 
Petitioner submitted evidence of membership in a professional association and license to practice the 
profession or a certification for a particular professional or occupation, but the Director indicated that 
the Petitioner did not submit evidence for these two criteria. On remand, the Director should review 
the record and discuss how the evidence does or does not establish that the Petitioner meets each of 
the criteria. 
As noted above, meeting the minimum requirements by providing at least three types of initial 
evidence is not sufficient to establish that the Petitioner is an individual of exceptional ability, but 
instead is only the first step. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). The second 
step of the process is based on a comprehensive qualitative analysis of the evidence. On remand, the 
Director should first analyze whether the evidence in the record establishes at least three of the 
regulatory criteria related to exceptional ability and, if necessary, fully explain how the evidence in 
the record does or does not establish each criterion. If the evidence does establish at least three of the 
criteria, the Director should then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that the Petitioner is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionmy in nature). 
2 
that ordinarily encountered in the field and would, as a result, meet the exceptional ability standard as 
a threshold issue prior to considering eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
As to the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not satisfy any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. On appeal, 
the Petitioner contends that the Director's decision contains erroneous conclusions of both law and 
fact. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow a 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)(l)(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). Upon review, the Director's decision does 
not properly analyze the evidence submitted to explain the reasons for denial. 
Regarding the substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Director 
concluded that the endeavor had neither but did not provide an analysis or explain the reasoning behind 
this conclusion aside from stating that the Petitioner's statement was insufficient. We note, however, 
that in addition to her personal statement, the Petitioner submitted a copy of her professional plan, an 
expert opinion letter, letters of recommendation, and other documentary evidence in support of her 
eligibility under the first prong. The Director should analyze the evidence to determine whether the 
record sufficiently demonstrates the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. The 
endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, or education. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at 
F.5(D)( 1 ). In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its 
potential prospective impact. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director should focus on what 
the Petitioner will be doing rather than the specific occupation. An endeavor having significant 
potential on the broader implications for a field or region generally may rise to the level of having 
national importance for the purpose of establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(l). The Director should review the record to 
determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated her proposed endeavor has significant potential on 
the broader impact in the field. 
If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet the substantial merit or 
national importance requirements of Dhanasar 's first prong, the decision should discuss the 
insufficiencies in the evidence and adequately explain the reasons for ineligibility. 
For Dhanasar's second prong, the Director concluded that the Petitioner was not well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor, but did not sufficiently explain the basis for the determination. On 
appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director ignored evidence of her academic qualification, 
professional achievements, and years of experience in the field, and reiterates her qualifications and 
commitment to advance her proposed endeavor. Although the Director listed the types of documents 
submitted by the Petitioner and generally concluded that they were insufficient, the decision does not 
analyze this evidence or explain why such evidence was deficient. 
3 
Again, an officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a petition in order to allow a 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)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786. Here, the Director's decision 
did not adequately address the evidence submitted with the petition or in response to the request for 
evidence. 
The Director should analyze the evidence to determine if the Petitioner is well positioned to advance 
the proposed endeavor, and should consider all of the evidence offered for prong two, including the 
Petitioner's academic record, certifications and trainings, expert opinion letter, and letters of support 
and recommendation. The Director should analyze the specific content of the record to determine if 
this documentation renders the Petitioner well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. If the 
Director concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet Dhanasar's second prong, the 
decision should discuss the insufficiencies in the evidence and adequately explain the reasons for 
ineligibility. 
As to the third prong of Dhanasar, the Director again concluded that the Petitioner's statement was 
insufficient because it was not accompanied by any evidence. The Director concluded that "the 
beneficiary has not established 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." Although the Director stated the law 
and the relevant considerations in performing the third prong's balancing analysis, the Director did 
not discuss the evidence weighed in balancing those considerations. Without a proper evaluation of 
the factors identified in Dhanasar 's third prong, the Director's determination for this prong was in 
error. If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet this prong, the 
decision should address the Petitioner's arguments and evidence, and explain the relative decisional 
weight given to each balancing factor. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, we are remanding the petition for the Director to consider whether the Petitioner has 
satisfied the eligibility requirements for the underlying EB-2 classification. In addition, 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 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. 
4