remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Security

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13618275 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a security officer, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual or as an individual possessing exceptional 
ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 
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 the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The Petitioner filed an appeal, which we summarily dismissed, concluding that the 
Petitioner did not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the 
Director's unfavorable decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner submits 
new evidence in support of his motion to reopen. He also seeks reconsideration of our decision to 
summarily dismiss the appeal. In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility 
for the immigration benefit sought. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
Upon review, we conclude that the combined motions meet the requirements of motion to reopen and 
reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a). Therefore, the motions are granted. However, we conclude that 
the Director's decision is insufficient for review. Therefore, we withdraw the Director's decision and 
remand the matter for further review of the record and issuance of a new decision. 
I. LAW
A. Motions
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must (1) 
state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application oflaw or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that 
the previous decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of 
the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
B. EB-2 Classification 
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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definition: "Exceptional 
ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the sciences, arts, or business." In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) 
sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of 
exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit documentation that satisfies at least three of the six 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as matter of discretion 2, grant a national 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Motions 
As discussed, we summarily dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
specifically identify any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact in the Director's unfavorable 
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). The Petitioner asserts that we failed to consider his previously 
submitted brief in support of the appeal. In support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner provided 
copies of his appeal brief and a common carrier receipt indicating that he had mailed a package to our 
office in May 2020. Further, a review ofUSCIS records reflects that the Petitioner timely filed his brief 
in May 2020, in which he provides arguments that specifically address his contention that the Director 
erred in denying the petition. 
Considering the Petitioner's evidence and the information contained in USCIS records, we conclude 
that the combined motions meet the requirements of motions to reopen and reconsider under 8 C.F.R 
§ 103.S(a). Therefore, we will reopen and consider the Petitioner's appeal of the Director's adverse 
decision. 
B. EB-2 Classification 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director failed to take into account the Petitioner's 
documentary evidence provided in support of the petition prior to his denial. We observe that the 
Director denied the petition, noting that "[ a ]fter the [P]etitioner has established ... eligibility for 
second preference classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the [Act], [USCIS)] may grant a 
national interest waiver if the [P]etitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that [the 
criteria established in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), have been satisfied]." The 
Director proceeded to conduct a Dhanasar analysis without first concluding whether the Petitioner 
qualifies for the EB-2 classification. 4 Upon de nova review, we conclude that a remand is warranted 
in this case because the Director's decision is insufficient for review. As presently constituted, the 
record does not establish whether the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, or as an individual of exceptional ability. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 Similarly, in a prior request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted that "[i]n order to establish eligibility, the [P]etitioner 
must establish that ... [he] qualifies for the requested classification; and [a]n exemption from the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus of a labor certification. is in the national interest of the United States." However, the Director did not 
comment in the RFE whether the Petitioner qualifies for the requested EB-2 classification. 
3 
1. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
To qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, a petitioner must show that 
his occupation meets the definition of a profession , and that he holds a qualifying advanced degree. 
With respect to his occupation meeting the definition of a profession , section 101(a)(32) of the Act 
does not include security officer in the list of professions. The Director should consider whether the 
Petitioner has established that a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum 
requirement for entry into his occupation . 
Additionally , in order to show that a petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree, the petition must 
be accompanied by "[a]n official academic record showing that the alien has a United States advanced 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Alternatively, a petitioner may 
present "[a]n official academic record showing that the alien has a United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer( s) 
showing that the alien has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the 
specialty." 8 e .F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) . The Petitioner submits a copy of his foreign academic degree 
and other evidence relevant to his employment as a police officer abroad, and asserts that he meets the 
EB-2 classification in accordance with 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). The Director should consider 
whether the Petitioner has established that he holds a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent, and least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
2. Exceptional Ability 
In his response to the Director 's RFE, the Petitioner asserts that he meets all of the regulatory criteria 
for classification as an individual of exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), with the exception 
of the remuneration for services criterion at 8 e .F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). The Director should follow 
users' two-step analysis to evaluate the evidence submitted with the petition to determine whether 
the Petitioner demonstrate s eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability. See 6 users Policy Manual F.5, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f­
chapter-5 (last visited July 23, 2021 ). 
3. National Interest Waiver 
We note that, regarding the Petitioner's remaining claims of eligibility under the Dhanasar analysis, we 
agree with the Director's ultimate conclusions. For example, regarding the national importance 
portion of the first prong, although the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to continue working 
in his field as a security officer in the United States, he has not offered sufficient infonnation and 
evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance. In Dhanasa r, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise 
to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. 
at 893. Similarly, the record in this matter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future employer(s) and clients such that it would 
impact U.S. interests or the law enforcement industry more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. In addition, he has not demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. 
4 
For the reasons discussed above, we are remanding the petition for the Director to consider whether the 
Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification, the threshold determination in national interest waiver 
cases. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new 
determination. 
ORDER: The motions are granted. The matter is remanded for farther proceedings consistent 
with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
5