remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Technology Business Operations

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 24509093 Date: MAY 9, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a technology-based business operations specialist, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 
EB-2 classification. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center initially approved the petition. However, the Director 
subsequently revoked the approval, concluding the Petitioner misrepresented material facts in order to 
obtain a national interest waiver. 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). 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. 
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. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• 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. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature) . 
With respect to revocations, section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, states, in pertinent part, that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, 
revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
Regarding revocation on notice, the Board of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record 
at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial 
of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The 
decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the 
decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner 
in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). 
By itself: the Director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. Id. The approval of a visa petition 
vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary step 
in the visa application process. Id. at 589. A beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, 
entitled to an immigrant visa. Id. 
The Director initially approved the petition, and the Petitioner later appeared at the U.S. Embassy in 
Seoul, South Korea for his immigrant visa interview. Based on the interview and derogatory 
information, the Embassy returned the petition to the Director and recommended revocation. The 
Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) and informed the Petitioner of the following: 
[The Petitioner] claimed to work as a Technology Base[d] Business Operations 
Specialist. During an interview [the Petitioner] was unable to answer questions 
regarding semiconductors when in fact, he has only ever been involved in sales. 
Comparison letters showed to be modified from __________ to add 
more content and added in the English version that [the Petitioner] is considered an 
expert in the field (that was not included in the Korean version of the letters). 
The [P]etitioner willfully made a false representation, and it is material to whether the 
petition is eligible for the request benefit. 
By claiming his job experience, scope of his role, and the effect of his work on his field, 
the [P]etitioner willfully made a false representation, and it is material to whether the 
[Petitioner] is eligible for the requested benefit. 
The Petitioner responded to the Director's NOIR, contested the allegations, and submitted new 
evidence. In revoking the approval, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's response, specifically 
stating: "During the period, USCIS received responses from the beneficiary. USCIS has added this 
2 
evidence to the record, and has considered the totality of this evidence as reflected in the analysis 
below." However, the Director's decision did not further address any of the Petitioner's particular 
NOIR response arguments. Instead, the Director cited to language from the NOIR, repeating the 
derogatory information from the Petitioner's interview and letters, referenced above. Moreover, 
although the Director claimed he "has considered the totality of this evidence as reflected in the 
analysis below," the decision did not discuss any of the NOIR response evidence. 
If, upon reconsideration, the approval previously granted is revoked, the director shall provide the 
petitioner or the self-petitioner with a written notification of the decision that explains the specific 
reasons for the revocation. 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c). Because the decision did not address the Petitioner's 
particular NOIR response arguments and evidence and discuss why they did not overcome the grounds 
in the NOIR, the Director did not provide specific reasons for the revocation. We are therefore 
remanding the matter for the Director to consider the NOIR arguments and evidence, including the 
additional arguments and evidence on appeal, and articulate to the Petitioner the specific reasons why 
the arguments and evidence do not overcome the grounds in the NOIR. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3