remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Physics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12263096 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 13, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that he had not established 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. Additionally, the Director put forth conflicting determinations in denying the petition 
regarding whether the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Director erred in denying 
the petition. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the 
Director's decision and remand the matter for further review of the record and issuance of a new 
decision. 
When denying a petition, the Director must fully explain the reasons for denial to allow the Petitioner 
a fair opportunity to contest the decision and provide the AAO an opportunity for meaningful appellate 
review. Cf Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that the reasons for denying a 
motion must be clear to allow the affected party a meaningful opportunity to challenge the 
determination on appeal). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i) states that when denying a 
petition, the Director shall explain in writing the specific reasons for denial. 
Here, we conclude that the Director's decision does not sufficiently explain the basis for denying the 
petition. Specifically, the Director made conflicting statements regarding whether the Petitioner qualifies 
for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, a threshold 
determination in national interest waiver cases. 
1 The Petitioner seeks to establish his eligibility for the EB-2 visa classification based solely upon his qualifications as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
For example, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's foreign bachelor of science degree in physics 
was a three-year degree based upon five semesters of coursework when the record reflects that the 
Petitioner has eight semesters of coursework. Then, the Director observed that the education credentials 
evaluation and the Petitioner's U.S. professional master's degree were obtained after the date of filing the 
petition, and concluded that the Petitioner did not have at least a bachelor's degree or a master's degree 
at the time of filing. However, the Director then concludes that "the Petitioner has established that he 
qualifies for the requested classification" ( emphasis added). 
On appeal, the Petitioner highlights the inconsistencies within the Director's determinations, indicating 
"[ w ]hile the denial of the I-140 visa petition concludes that the [Petitioner] holds an advanced degree on 
page 2 of the attachment to the decision, the proceeding content belies that conclusion." The Petitioner 
asserts on appeal that as of the date of filing, the Petitioner "held a four-year degree ... had over ten years 
of progressively more responsible work experience ... [ and] had also completed 1.5 years of [ m Jaster' s 
level education .... " The Petitioner also references the education credential evaluations in the record 
which conclude that the Petitioner holds an advanced degree based upon "his education, training, and 
work experience all acquired prior to the filing of the visa petition." 
The Director should clearly explain why the Petitioner does not qualify as a member of professions 
holding an advanced degree, including why the documents in the record do not estalish eligibility. We 
therefore are remanding the case to the Director for further review and to provide accurate and 
sufficient explanation of the grounds of denial regarding the evidence in this particular case so that the 
Petitioner more fully understands the Director's concerns. 
The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination and 
any other issues. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on 
remand. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
2