The Petitioner, a research assistant in information systems and data management, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 immigrant 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, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 1 but she had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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. Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,
2 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that:
- The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance;
- The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the United States.
Id. at 889.
The Petitioner's primary contention on appeal is that the Director did not properly adjudicate the facts of the case. The Petitioner asserts that the Director incorrectly observed in the request for evidence (RFE) that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is in the "field of travel" and erroneously referred to the Petitioner's consulting company as I I Although the Petitioner questioned the Director's erroneous references in her RFE response, she claims that the Director denied her case without addressing her concerns. Subsequently, the Petitioner contends that the Director's decision failed to analyze or incorporate the evidence as submitted in the record and she did not receive "a fair review of her entire case."
The record indicates that the Petitioner intends to work as "an Information Technologist with specialization and focus on [sic] information systems management" and develop "new models to advance security and efficiency in data management and information systems with a focus on the financial services sector . . . with a goal of preventing data loss and mismanagement, fraud, and other related occurrences." In responding to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner stated that her long-term goal is to provide technology solutions to start up and small businesses through her own consulting firm, and "contribute to the overall security of the United States' business ecosystem while also empowering businesses of all sizes to protect themselves against data mismanagement and insecurity."
Upon de novo review, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case. We agree with the Petitioner that the Director incorrectly described her proposed endeavor in the RFE, contrary to the evidence ofrecord. More importantly, the decision simply identified the Petitioner's profession as a research assistant without fully describing or discussing the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as presented in the record.
Moreover, the decision lacks sufficient analysis and discussion ofthe evidence. In evaluating national importance of the endeavor under the first prong of Dhanasar, the Director made conclusory statements without addressing the evidence on record. In discussing the second prong, whether the Petitioner is well- ositioned to advance her endeavor, the Director referred to the Petitioner's degrees from the which appear unrelated to p. 3 § 103.3(a)(i). This explanation should be sufficient to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., Matter ofM- P-20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Because the Director did not sufficiently identify the Petitioner's endeavor and meaningfully analyze the evidence before finding the Petitioner ineligible under the Dhanasar framework, we will withdraw the decision. On remand, the Director should review the entire record in considering whether the Petitioner has sufficiently identified her proposed endeavor and whether she has established eligibility under each of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework.
This matter will be remanded to the Director to determine if the Petitioner has established eligibility for a national interest waiver. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination. 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.