The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification, 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 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 a subsequent motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. The Director determined thatthe Petitioner had not demonstrated "eligibility for the requested benefit" or "that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence ofrecord at the time of the initial decision." The matter is now before us on appeal, While we conduct de nova review, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case because the Director's decision is insufficient for review. Although we may agree with the Director's ultimate conclusions, we also agree with the Petitioner that the Director "failed to address the new arguments raised by the Appellant" and "did not discuss the new evidence submitted." See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3(a)(l)(i) (requiring in writing specific reasons for denial of an application or petition); see generally Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal).
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361;MatterofChawathe, 25 I&NDec. 369,375 (AAO 2010).
ORDER: The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision, which, if adverse, shall be certified to us for review.