dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: General Operations Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19611580 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 9, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks 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 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 he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner submits evidence and a brief asserting he is eligible for a 
national interest waiver. In these proceedings, it is the Applicant's burden to establish eligibility for 
the requested benefit by a preponderance of evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361; Matter 
ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369,376 (AAO 2010). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203 (b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. [T]he Attorney General may, when the 
Attorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements 
of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance 
the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive 
the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, regarding substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 2 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding the equivalent of 
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 a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 3 
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has submitted insufficient and 
inconsistent evidence regarding the substantive nature of his proposed endeavor. In the initial filing, 
the Petitioner asserted in his "professional plan & statement" that he will "continue [his] career as a 
general operations manager, to advise U.S. companies on how to properly plan, direct, and coordinate 
the operations of their businesses." He stated that he "will ensure the success of any company that 
employs me," and described the attributes of his endeavor, as follows: 
General Operations Managers plan, direct, or coordinate the operations of private sector 
organizations. Duties and responsibilities include formulating policies, managing daily 
operations, and planning the use of materials and human resources, but are too diverse 
and general in nature to be classified in any one functional area of management or 
administration, such as personnel, purchasing, or administrative services. 
This description is taken, verbatim, from the general job description for general and operations 
managers on O*NET, an employment information database sponsored by the U.S. Department of 
Labor. 4 The Petitioner provided articles and reports about the nature of the work performed by general 
operations managers which generally describe the occupation but provide no specific details about the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
He also asserted he will "contribute significantly to general operations management as it pertains to 
the Brazilian business environment and rubber products market," but the Petitioner initially proposed 
no specific endeavor relating to his plans; instead, he put forth general assertions that an employer 
seeking to do business in Brazil could benefit from his knowledge of that country. He stated: 
My [endeavor will] help U.S. businesses seize new market and investment opportunities 
[which] will potentially impact the U.S. in the following ways: 
• Facilitating cross-border projects between the U.S., Brazil, and Latin America; 
• Designing, implementing, and managing all activities in large-scale projects; 
• Enhance the business facets of U.S. companies; 
• Providing project leadership, people management, and business development; and, 
• Generate tax revenue. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently elaborate on these claims. For example, regarding enhancing the 
business facets of U.S. companies, the Petitioner did not detail how his proposed endeavor will 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 See https://web.archive.org/web/20181230165056/https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/l l-1021.00. 
3 
enhance the business facets of U.S. companies, nor did he sufficient explain how his endeavor will 
produce such effects at nationally significant levels. He emphasized that he created a business in 
Brazil in 2000; "a company that distributes hoses, straps, adhesives, glues, and safety equipment for 
industrial maintenance" noting "I bring 24 years of experience in the field of general operations." 
Importantly, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of 
the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national 
importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), asking for more information and evidence to 
establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. In response, the Petitioner submitted a 
revised "professional plan & statement." Parts of this statement repeat the earlier version, but he added 
that he recently founded a company, V-, and through this company he will provide "import, export, 
distribution and services." He also mentioned that he is a managing partner of D-, a used car seller, 
and the record establishes that he has partial ownership. In the new statement he omitted mention of 
seeking direct employment with U.S. companies. Instead, he stated that he will be an entrepreneur 
and general manager of operations of his own company. He also discussed the importance of supply 
chain management. 
The record shows that the Petitioner did not form V- until after he filed the petition. His initial 
description of the proposed endeavor did not include any plans to form such a company. If significant 
material changes are made to the initial request for approval, a petitioner must file a new petition rather 
than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ). 
Further, the evidence submitted in the RFE response provided conflicting information about the 
Petitioner's endeavor. Specifically, he stated in the RFE that he will offer "consulting services to 
improve supply chain operations (import, export, distribution, and logistics) through which he will 
provide valuable support in areas of critical need and national importance." He submitted a copy of 
O*NET' s 2019 summary report for the "supply chain managers" occupation, which indicates that in 
this occupation managers typically: 
Direct or coordinate production, purchasing, warehousing, distribution, or financial 
forecasting services or activities to limit costs and improve accuracy, customer service, 
or safety. Examine existing procedures or opportunities for streamlining activities to 
meet production distribution needs. Direct the movement, storage, or processing of 
inventory. 
The Petitioner's focus on his entrepreneurial provision of supply chain management services presented 
in the RFE substantively differs from his initial plan to provide services to U.S. employers as a general 
operations manager. We therefore conclude the RFE response presented a new set of facts regarding 
the proposed endeavor, which is material to eligibility for a national interest waiver. See Matter of 
Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978); see also Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-
90. The Petitioner must meet eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l). We conclude the Petitioner's establishment of a new company and his revised plan to 
focus his endeavor on his business and supply chain management consulting presented after the filing 
date cannot retroactively establish eligibility. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition 
4 
that has already been filed to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. 
See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971), which requires that beneficiaries seeking employment-based 
immigrant classification must possess the necessary qualifications as of the filing date of the visa 
petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his revised business plan submitted in the RFE response describes 
"in-depth, his specific plans in the nation, including the national importance of his work." While the 
Petitioner indicates that the U.S. hose industry will benefit from the creation and expansion of his 
business, he has not shown the national importance of V-' s prospective business operations in the 
United States. For instance, he does not adequately explain through his revised plan how his endeavor 
is of national importance, rather than a means to primarily benefit himself through his business or its 
clients. The five-year "start-up" plan for V- in the RFE response indicates that V- will first focus on 
the export of U.S. manufactured goods to Brazil. V- will also establish operations to support and 
facilitate the importation of Brazilian-made rubber and plastic products through the Petitioner's 
businesses located in Brazil, as follows: 
[V-] will initially target American companies in Florida's home state to commercialize 
the [I- and E-] brand products for import and distribution to the final consumer 
(Companies) to create a minimal relationship with the brand and gain traction for the 
products with the companies from Florida. Later on, distributors of [I- and E-] products 
[in Georgia in year 3 and the Carolinas in year 5] will be developed. 
Importantly, the business plan does not sufficiently explain how V- plans to partner with other 
companies to export goods to Brazil, or the specific U.S. manufactured goods to be exported. 
Likewise, the plan does not adequately identify the markets V- will target to establish distribution 
networks for the importation of Brazilian products, or whether it will differentiate itself from 
established competitors in the U.S. market through offering significant innovations to the industry. 
The business plan asserts that V- will generate revenues exceeding $800,000 in 2021, which will 
steadily climb each year to reach revenues of over $6,000,000 in 2026, and as a result will have created 
at least 37 jobs in that timeframe. However, the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for these 
financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized. Here, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his business will impact the nation at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 
further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n 
undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. 
at 890. 
5 
In his appeal brief, the Petitioner a sserts that his proposed endeavor with its focus on entrepreneurship 
and supply chain management stands to "generate a broad[] impact on the field, especially as he will 
support the small businesses ecosystem , and the overall U.S. economy." To evaluate whether the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence 
documenting the "potential prospective impact " of his work. Although the Petitioner's statements 
reflect his intention to provide suppl y chain man agement services and promot e international trade 
throu gh h is Florid a-based compan y, he has n ot offered sufficient info1mation and evidence to 
demon strate that the pro specti ve impact of his propo sed endeavor rises to the level of nation al 
importance. In Dhanasar we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the 
level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893 . 
Here , we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor stands t o 
sufficientl y extend beyond his compa ny to impact his field or related industries more broadly at a level 
commen surate with national importance . 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endea vor he proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. Specificall y, he has not shown that his compan y's future staffing levels would 
provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States . While the Petitioner asserts that 
V- will hire 37 U.S. employees within five years, he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area 
where the company operates is economically depressed , that he would employ a significant population 
of workers in that area, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial 
economic benefit through employment level s or business activity. Without sufficient information or 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, 
the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner 's 
projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. 
at 890. Accordingly , the Petitione r' s propo sed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver , we must rely on the 
specific proposed endeavor to determine whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national 
importance and (2) the foreign national is well positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. 
See Dhanasa r, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information 
regarding his proposed endeavor , we cannot conclude that he meets either the first or second prong, 
or that he has established eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility 
under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar, therefore , would serve no meaningful purpose. It is 
unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal. 
See INSv. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); 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 and second prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework , 
we conclude that he has not demonstrated that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6