The Petitioner, a general and operations manager, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative, classification as an individual of 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. § 1153(b)(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, noting that "[a]fter the [P]etitioner has established .. . eligibility for second preference classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) ofthe [Act], [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] may grant a national interest waiver if the [P]etitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that [the criteria established in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), have been satisfied]." The Director proceeded to conduct aDhanasar analysis without first concluding whether the Petitioner qualifies for a second preference classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative, as an individual of While we conduct de nova review on appeal, 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 degreeor,inthealternative,asanindividualofexceptionalability. Seesection203(b)(2)oftheAct.
We note that, although the record contains an evaluation of the Petitioner's academic credentials, the evaluation addresses the Petitioner's foreign degree in architecture, a specialty dissimilar to business administration,thefocusoftheproposedendeavor. See8C.F.R.§204.5(k)(2)(requiringaqualifying degree and experience to be "in the specialty"); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) (requiring an official academic record establishing that the noncitizen has a degree or similar award from a college, Similarly,in apriorrequestforevidence,theDirectornotedthat"[i]nordertoestablisheligibility,the[P]etitionermust establish that. .. [he] qualifies for the requested classification; and [a]n exemption from the requirement ofa job offer, andthusofalaborcertification,isinthenationalinterestoftheUnitedStates." However,theDirectordidnotcomment on whether the Petitioner qualifies fortherequested classification. exceptional ability. p. 2 university or other institution of learning "relating to the area of exceptional ability" to satisfy that criterion). Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to determine if the Petitioner has established eligibility fortheunderlyingclassificationasamemberoftheprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree or,inthealternative,asanindividualofexceptionalability,andtoenteranewdecision. TheDirector may request any additional evidence considered pe1iinent to the new determination and any other issue. Assuch,weexpressnoopinionregardingtheultimateresolutionofthiscaseonremand.
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.