remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Packaging Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 17, 2025 In Re: 35712465 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a sales manager in the packaging industry, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) 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 classification. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he 
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 pursuant to 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). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884,889 (AAO 2016), provides 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. 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: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
• 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. 
Id. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a sales manager in the packaging industry, proposes to continue working in this role in 
the United States for various companies. The Director determined that the Petitioner established his 
eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on his possession of the 
foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree in business administration. However, the Director 
concluded the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a 
labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. In denying the petition, the 
Director determined that although the proposed endeavor had substantial merit, the Petitioner provided 
insufficient evidence to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed endeavor had significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers, would offer substantial positive economic effects for the United States, or that the 
benefits to the national economy resulting from the proposed endeavor would reach a level contemplated 
by the Dhanasar framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not fully evaluate the evidence submitted in 
support of his eligibility for a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification. 
Specifically, the Petitioner contends that the decision "omitted a very detailed analysis regarding the 
national importance of [his] proposed work," noting that despite providing a detailed breakdown of 
five distinct aspects of the proposed endeavor in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), 
the decision vaguely concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor without considering his supplemental evidence. 2 The Petitioner further asserts that 
the Director's decision did not reflect consideration of the evidence provided in response to the RFE, 
noting that the decision directly quotes three paragraphs from the RFE as a basis for the denial. 
Collectively considering the evidence submitted prior to the Director's decision, we agree with the 
Petitioner that his evidence was not given due consideration. An officer must fully explain the reasons 
for denying a visa petition in order 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)(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 denial to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on 
2 The record reflects that the Director did not consider the statements and supporting evidence provided in response to the 
RFE, which included a discussion on how the proposed endeavor would protect the environment, provide cost savings in 
warehouse logistics and supply chain, and have specific implications for the food and beverage industry, the cosmetic 
industry, and the packaging industry. 
2 
appeal). While the Director listed the evidence submitted in support of the petition and in response to 
the RFE in the denial, the decision does not adequately address the documentation in the record. 
The Petitioner provided support letters from counsel, letters of recommendation, letters of interest 
from U.S. companies, articles related to sales management and the packaging industry, and other 
supporting materials regarding the economic and environmental impacts of packaging materials on 
the U.S. economy. The Director should analyze this evidence to determine whether the record 
sufficiently demonstrates the endeavor has national importance. 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. 3 
The Director should review the record to determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated his 
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 national importance requirement of 
Dhanasar 's first prong, the decision should discuss the insufficiencies in the evidence and adequately 
explain the reasons for ineligibility. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
In the second prong, the focus shifts to the petitioner and their positioning to advance their proposed 
endeavor, and we look at several factors in making this determination. We consider factors including, 
but not limited to, their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; 
a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the 
interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. at 890. 
For Dhanasar 's second prong, the Director, as noted by the Petitioner, provided conflicting statements 
regarding whether this prong has been met. In the RFE, the Director stated that "the beneficiary 
submitted evidence that establishes he is well positioned to work as a sales manager at a packing 
company. Therefore, the beneficiary has established that he is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor." In the denial, however, the Director initially states that "the beneficiary has not submitted 
sufficient documentary evidence that demonstrates she [sic] is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor," but concludes the analysis by stating that the Petitioner has established that he meets this 
prong. The Director's conclusion with regard to this prong, therefore, is unclear. 
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 address the evidence submitted with the petition or in response to the RFE in support of the 
second prong, and does not clearly articulate whether the Petitioner's evidence was sufficient to satisfy 
this prong. The Director should analyze the specific content of the record to determine if the 
Petitioner's evidence renders him well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. If the Director 
3 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)( l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
3 
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. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
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 "on balance, it would not be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor 
certification," noting that the Petitioner could not satisfy the third prong because he had not satisfied 
prongs one and two. However, the Director did not discuss the evidence weighed in balancing those 
considerations or address the Petitioner's specific claims as to the third prong. Moreover, in 
concluding he had not satisfied the third prong, the Director again rendered an inconsistent conclusion 
regarding whether the Petitioner had demonstrated he was well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor under prong two. 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. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons outlined above, we are remanding the petition to the Director to determine if the 
Petitioner has established eligibility 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. 
4