remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Science

k)enmdab&leCed te 
prevent dearly unwamted 
invasion d personal privaq 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
(33" 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Thls is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided you case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
u 
s~obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Off~ce on appeal. The decision of the director will be 
withdrawn and the petition will be remanded for further action and consideration. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. At the time of filing, the 
petitioner was a doctoral student at the University of Texas at Austin. The petitioner asserts that an exemption 
from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States. 
The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree but that the petitioner had not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer 
would be in the national interest of the United States. 
The director's denial notice consists entirely of general statements about regulations and case law, with no 
specific discussion of the specific merits or deficits of this petitioner's claim of eligibility. The decision appears 
to be little more than a template, intended not as a full decision but as the basic skeleton of such a decision. 
Supporting this conclusion are sections that consist entirely of a bold-type heading followed by the bracketed 
phrase "[NOT DISCUSSED]." Such passages may be appropriate in a raw template document, but elements not 
relevant to a gven decision should be removed from such a template before the document can be considered to be 
in its fmal form. 
The director's decision contains no information about the petitioner's claims except for the statement that the 
petitioner works "in science." The stated grounds for denial are so generic that the petitioner has not had a 
meaningful opportunity to offer a substantive appeal. The wording of the decision offers no obvious indication 
that the author of the decision has examined the record in any detail. 
Therefore, this matter will be remanded. The director may request any additional evidence deemed warranted 
and should allow the petitioner to submit additional evidence in support of its position within a reasonable period 
of time. As always in these proceedings, the burden of proof rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. 
ORDER: 
 The director's decision is withdrawn. The petition is remanded to the director for further action 
in accordance with the foregoing and entry of a new decision which, if adverse to the petitioner, 
is to be certified to the Administrative Appeals Office for review.