PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
RemandedNational Interest Waiver · Appeal

Entrepreneur

Business & finance · decided 2023-01-10 · TSC · JAN102023_01B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 1Merit and national importanceNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 2Well positioned to advance itNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 3Worth waiving the job offerNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

2 (AAO 2015), we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case because the Director's decision is insufficientforreview. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to determine if the record establishes whether the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, and to enter a new decision. See in text
  • ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. See in text
  • The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. See in text
Read the full decision (1 page)

Objections found (0)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

No catalog objection was detected in the analysis section.

    Full decision

    OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

    Highlighted: Outcome (3)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · In Re : 24230086 · Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · Date: JAN. 10, 2023 · Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver)

    The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Immigration and Nationality Act(the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver ofthe job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. Seesection203(b)(2)(B)(i)oftheAct, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus ofa labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so.

    The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would beinthenationalinterest. Thematterisnowbeforeusonappeal. 8C.F.R.§103.3.

    While we conduct de novo review on appeal, Matter o f Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015), we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case because the Director's decision is insufficientforreview. Aspresentlyconstituted,therecorddoesnotestablishwhethertheproposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. See Matter o fDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884at889-90(AAO2016). Specifically,althoughtheDirector'sdecisionaddressesthesecondand thirdDhanasarprongs,itdoesnotaddressthefirstDhanasarprong. Wenotethat,inanunderlying request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that the record-at that time-did not satisfy the first Dhanasar prong; however, the Director did not address the evidence submitted in response to the RFE as applied to the first Dhanasar prong in the decision.

    Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to determine if the record establishes whether the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, and to enter a new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination and any other issue. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand.

    ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis.