dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business And Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 14, 2024 In Re: 33944907 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business and logistics specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
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 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 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 
be in the national interest. The Petitioner then submitted a combined motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider. The Director again concluded that the record does not establish 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 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 ofDhanasar, 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, 1 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 their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Id. at 889. See id. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver 
of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer is warranted. 
The Petitioner described the proposed endeavor as a plan "to work in the United States as a Specialist 
in International Business and Logistics in the exports/imports industry for international trade." The 
Petitioner elaborated that he "plan[ s] to work in a large logistics company where my experience in 
Colombia along with my language skills in Spanish and English would be especially beneficial." He 
also generally stated that he "will help develop and implement new logistics processes that lower costs 
and port charges while improving the profit and lead times of the international business." 
The Director concluded the proposed endeavor has substantial merit as required, in part, by the first 
Dhanasar prong. See id. at 889-90. The Director acknowledged that the record contains "documents 
that discuss the importance of the industry." However, the Director explained that those documents 
"are not specific to the self-petitioner. Therefore, it is not apparent how these articles are relevant in 
determining eligibility to [ the national interest aspect of the first Dhanasar] prong." The Director also 
acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted "recommendation letters [that] recognize and praise the 
[Petitioner's] ability in the field." However, the Director observed that the Petitioner "has not 
established that the proposed endeavor ... has implications beyond a company, (or any prospective 
employers), business partners, alliances, and/or unidentified clients at a level sufficient to demonstrate 
the national importance of the endeavor," as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. Although 
the Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Director concluded that 
the record satisfied the second Dhanasar prong; however, the Director also concluded that the record 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
does not satisfy the third Dhanasar prong. The Director reserved the issue of whether the record 
satisfies the third Dhanasar prong in the combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider 
decision. See id. at 888-91 for elaboration on these three prongs. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again references his "background and experience," a generalized "national 
shortage oflntemational Business Experts," and "the national significance ofjob creation, logistic and 
economic impact attributed to his proposed endeavor." The Petitioner also submits an employment 
verification letter, and he asserts he "plays a crucial role in addressing supply chain issues, 
significantly impacting the national interest of the United States through the management of logistics 
for construction and agricultural machinery." 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential 
prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first 
prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
We first note that the Petitioner's references-throughout the record but specifically on appeal-to 
his "background and experience" are material to the second Dhanasar prong, whether an individual is 
well-positioned to advance a proposed endeavor. See id. However, an individual's background and 
experience are immaterial to determining whether the potential prospective impact of the specific 
endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake may have the type of broader implications 
indicative of national importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. Because the 
Petitioner's background and experience are immaterial to the issue of whether the specific endeavor 
he proposes to undertake may have national importance, we need not address them further. 
We acknowledge that, on appeal, the Petitioner submits an employment verification letter dated April 
2024. However, the extent of the one-paragraph employment verification letter confirms that the entity 
has employed the Petitioner since November 21, 2022, it states his job title, and it confirms he works 
40 hours per week, compensated a certain amount monthly. We note that, in contrast to the Petitioner's 
assertions on appeal, the one-paragraph employment verification letter does not address whether he 
"plays a crucial role in addressing supply chain issues, significantly impacting the national interest of 
the United States through the management of logistics for construction and agricultural machinery." 
Neither the employment verification letter nor the remainder of the record establish how the 
Petitioner's work "holding the Title of Logistic Manager" has national or even global implications 
within the field of logistics, construction, agriculture, or any other field, such as those resulting from 
certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances, significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers, or other substantial positive economic effects that may indicate national importance. See id. 
The record, considered in its entirety, establishes that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of working 
"in a large logistics company" as a business and logistics specialist will benefit his employer(s), their 
business partners, and their clients and customers. However, the record does not establish how the 
3 
potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor may have national importance, as contemplated 
by the first Dhanasar prong. For example, the Petitioner asserts he "will help develop and implement 
new logistics processes that lower costs and port charges while improving the profit and lead times of 
the international business." However, the implications of that appear to be confined to the 
international business that employs him, its business partners, and its clients and customers, rather 
than posing national or even global implications within the field of logistics, construction, agriculture, 
or any other field, such as those resulting from certain manufacturing processes or medical advances. 
See id. We note that, by lowering the employer's costs and port charges, the proposed endeavor 
appears to have negative financial consequences for ports and other entities by lowering their revenue 
at the same rate the proposed endeavor lowers the employer's costs and port charges. Thus, the 
benefits to the Petitioner's employer(s), their business partners, and their clients and customers appear 
to cause offsetting negative economic effects for other entities. 
As another example, the Petitioner generally references on appeal a "national shortage oflnternational 
Business Experts." However, the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor of the 
Petitioner working as one "Logistic Manager" for-presumably-one employer at a time will affect 
the alleged "national shortage of International Business Experts" at a level indicative of national 
importance. 
As a further example, the Petitioner generally references "the national significance ofjob creation" on 
appeal. However, the record does not establish how his logistics work for his employer will create 
jobs, the number ofjobs his logistics work will create, the extent to which his logistics work as opposed 
to other factors within the employer's operation caused those jobs to be created, and other details that 
could support the conclusion that the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers. See id. Moreover, the record does not reconcile whether there would be job losses at the 
entities whose revenues would be lowered at the rate the proposed endeavor would lower the 
Petitioner's employer's costs and port charges, as noted above, potentially resulting in a net loss of 
overall U.S. jobs. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4