dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Industrial Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 11, 2024 In Re: 30585778 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an 
advanced degree professional, 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 established 
he is an advanced degree professional but had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus that 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. An 
advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for 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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101 ( a)(32) of the Act. 
for adjudicating national interest waiver pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a 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 their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The 
Director concluded the Petitioner established his eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced 
degree professional on the basis of his education and work experience, as defined by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). We agree with the Director's conclusion. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake and its "potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. 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. The term "endeavor" is more 
specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation 
normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that 
occupation. For example, while engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed 
endeavor should describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the 
person will work, rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. As such, we will 
first identify the Petitioner's endeavor as shown in the record. Then, we will evaluate the Petitioner's 
evidence in support of the endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. 
The Petitioner describes his proposed endeavor as continuing to provide consulting and advisory 
services, using his background as an industrial engineer and his over 20 years of work experience to 
develop "improvements to logistics processes through the application of models leveraged in heuristic 
techniques, application of descriptive statistics and integration of Constraint Theory (TOC) models" 
and "Slotting models," which he states are "easily cross-sector-compliant processes with significant 
process benefits." With these models, he asserts his proposed endeavor will contribute to American 
technological and economic competitiveness because these tools are used to improve supply chains, 
logistics, productivity, and minimize ergonomic risks in operations within manufacturing warehouses. 
2 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 
He explains that his interest in providing these services in the United States lies in the fact that the 
"U.S. has the business and technological talen [sic] to contribute greatly to technological solutions to 
global supply chain challenges." 
As the endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit. Id. However, as discussed below, the Petitioner has not 
established that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a brief and asserts the Director imposed "a novel or otherwise 
undefined and arbitrary requirement that is not present in the controlling precedent or relevant 
regulations in order to serve as a bar for approval of a petition." To support his contention, the 
Petitioner cites to Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 753-54 (9th Cir. 2008), a case in 
which the Ninth Circuit determined that the AAO's interpretation of an eligibility requirement was 
inconsistent with the governing regulation. Here, the Petitioner's specific concerns arise from the 
Director's analysis of reference letters submitted by the Petitioner under the first Dhanasar prong, 
even though the letters were submitted to establish his eligibility under Dhanasar 's second prong. 
However, the Petitioner's concerns are unfounded because the Director analyzed the letters to 
determine if the Petitioner's prior work demonstrated any broader impacts on his profession, which is 
the focus of Dhanasar's prong one analysis. Furthermore, in their prong one analysis, after 
considering the Petitioner's reference letters, the Director analyzed the industry articles and reports 
submitted by the Petitioner to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Finally, to 
the extent the Petitioner submitted these letters for the sole purpose of establishing eligibility under 
prong two, the Director concluded he met the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. As such, 
any error on the part of the Director was harmless. 
The Petitioner further contends that the Director failed to "discuss all elements of the evidence 
submitted [with the petition] to the disadvantage of the Petitioner and is a significant defect .... " The 
Petitioner's main concern is that the Director did not specifically mention his business plan. Moreover, 
the Petitioner observes that federal courts have noted that decisions failing to contemplate or discuss 
the entirety of the evidence in a filing amount to critical error in the adjudicative process, and cites to 
Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1233 (E.D. Mich. 1994), in support of his contention. The court's 
opinion in Buletini referred to the Director's failure to consider all the forms of evidence that the 
petitioner in that case submitted. Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1232-33. However, the court in Buletini 
did not determine that users was required to discuss each and every piece of evidence within the 
record, as the Petitioner appears to assert. As such, the Petitioner's reliance on this decision is 
unpersuasive. 
Although we agree with the Petitioner that the Director did not directly discuss every piece of 
evidence, the Director did provide a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and the Petitioner has not 
established how those omitted documents demonstrated the national importance of his endeavor or his 
eligibility for the benefit sought. When users provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and 
has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim a petitioner 
makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence a petitioner presents. See Amin v. 
Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383,394 (5th Cir. 2022); Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir. 1992); aff'd 
Morales v. INS, 208 F.3d 323,328 (1st Cir. 2000); see also Pakasi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 
3 
2009); and Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009). Thus, an omission 
of a specific document is not necessarily outcome determinative or legal or factual error. 
The Petitioner also argues that the Director imposed novel criteria not required under the Dhanasar 
framework when they determined that the proposed endeavor needs to have a "broader impact on the 
field." Upon de novo review, the Director accurately articulated and considered the Dhanasar 
framework requiring a proposed endeavor's broader impacts on the field beyond its clients. Indeed, 
Dhanasar instructs that "we look for broader implications" to determine if an endeavor is of national 
importance. Id. at 889. Furthermore, in Dhanasar, we determined that a STEM teacher's proposed 
endeavor had substantial merit, but that the record did not establish his teaching activities would 
impact the field of education more broadly. Id. at 893. Similarly, here, while the services the 
Petitioner intends to provide may be of value to his clients, he has not established through independent 
evidence that his endeavor will impact the field of supply chain management more broadly. See id.; 
see also Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. The Director's decision correctly articulated 
this standard and explained the reasons why the Petitioner had not established his burden. 
Next, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred by failing to consider the totality of the evidence 
submitted to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. He asserts that the Director 
disregarded reputable industry sources, which directly spoke to the proposed endeavor's national 
importance because his aim is to focus on optimizing the supply chain-related processes of U.S. 
companies, which will improve their overall productivity, and impact the economic activity of small 
businesses, which the Administration deems "crucial to economic prosperity, workforce development, 
and even national security." He contends that his personal statements contain "ample arguments 
supported by objective documentary evidence to support the assertions ... with respect to the 
economic benefits of the [] proposed endeavor." The Petitioner's focus is to help small and medium­
sized businesses develop and implement strategies to deal with excess inventory, reduce costs, and 
improve product delivery. He cites specifically to his business plan as the document that most clearly 
demonstrates his endeavor's broader impact from an "economic standpoint." 
The Petitioner's business plan outlines his professional and educational background, as well as his 
proposed endeavor and the impacts he asserts will follow. The Petitioner intends to start a company, 
____________ (the Company), located inl IGeorgia, in which he 
will serve as the co-owner and general manager of consulting logistics as well as working on the 
Company's business development and growth. The plan describes his choice of Georgia based on the 
state's strong presence of small and medium sized businesses, entrepreneurs, as well as its diverse 
culture of innovation and strong professional base in various sectors such as information technology, 
logistics, and manufacturing. The Company will provide the following services: consulting service in 
the supply chain management specialty; design and implement solutions that will have an effective, 
efficient, and immediate purpose for small and medium sized companies being served; warehouse 
operations execution system and the information system network between areas of operations relevant 
to inventory management; supply chain analysis and optimization; logistics network design; 
transportation management; warehouse and inventory management; information technology; change 
management; and human resources training. 
In Dhanasar, we 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 
4 
instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. To bolster his statement 
that his endeavor will provide "substantial positive economic effects," the Petitioner asserts that the 
Company will be located within a Small Business Administration designated historically underutilized 
business zone (HUBZone). The HUBZone program promotes business growth in underutilized 
business zones with the goal of awarding three percent of federal contract dollars to companies that 
are HUB Zone certified. See https ://www. s ba. gov /federal-contracting/ contracting-assistance­
programs/hubzone-program. We acknowledge that by design, operating a business in an HUBZone 
offers several advantages including eligibility for federal contracting preferences, access to set-aside 
contracts, and potential tax incentives. 3 However, businesses seeking HUBZone certification must be 
owned and controlled by U.S. citizens, a community development corporation, an agricultural 
cooperative, or an Indian tribe. Id. Further, the business's principal office must be located in the 
designated HUBZone, and it must be the location where the greatest number of employees perform 
their work. 4 Here, there is no indication that the Petitioner's business meets the requirements for 
HUBZone certification. Further, to the extent that the Petitioner equates his business being in a 
HUBZone with Dhanasar 's emphasis on job creation leading to "substantial positive economic effects 
particularly in an economically depressed area," the evidence does not establish how merely locating 
his office in an HUBZone is sufficient to meet this standard. And, even if the Company were to yield 
new jobs in a HUBZone location (a fact he has not established), the economic impact from this 
potential hiring is too amorphous to be considered of national importance as contemplated in 
Dhanasar . Id. at 890. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner's business plan projects the creation of numerous jobs, revenue, 
and taxes paid by its fifth year of operation, however the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for 
the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing 
projections will be realized. 5 Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. As such, without more, he 
has not established that his endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Dhanasar at 890. 
Apart from job creation and boosting the economy, the Petitioner's business plan highlights the 
following additional positive impacts that will stem from his endeavor: improving performance in all 
stages of logistics, distribution and sourcing chains of American small and medium sized businesses 
served; international trade development; infrastructure development; environmental impact ( due to a 
reduction in the carbon footprint from more streamlined logistics); increased profitability and 
sustainability of American small and medium-sized companies; increased purchasing power and 
standard ofliving ofU.S . citizens; contributing to the U.S.'s gross domestic product and social welfare 
benefits for U.S. citizens and communities; and its alignment with USCIS 's STEM policy. 
3 See https ://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/ contracting-assistance-programs /hubzone-program. 
4 Id. 
5 The Petitioner's business plan specifies that by its fifth year of operation, the Company will create 14 jobs including: 
owner and general manager, supply chain consultant, logistics analyst, operations manager, procurement specialist, 
logistics & distribution manager, data analyst, administrative assistant, customer service representative, quality assurance 
specialist, and business development specialist. In addition, he advises the Company will contract services from certified 
public accountant(s), legal advisor(s), financial advisor(s), human resources specialist(s), marketing agenc(ies), and other 
specialized industry contractors. In terms of revenues, he projects that by its fifth year of operation, the Company will 
have: $1,065,439 in payroll expenses; $1,373,789 in operating expenses; $232,779 in total taxes; $170,247 in net profit; 
and $1,617,000 in sales/projected revenues. 
5 
In support of these claims, the Petitioner relies on industry, government, and research reports to 
establish the national importance of his endeavor, and the broader impacts that will flow from it. He 
claims that, for instance, the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals' report "Importance 
of Supply Chain Management ," along with several government White House Fact Sheets discussing 
supply chain disruptions and the importance of small businesses to our economy, provides sufficient 
objective support to establish his burden. We acknowledge that the U.S. government has been 
concerned with supply chain issues, especially after the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic 
on logistics and supply chains. However, the fact that a petitioner is qualified for and may accept a 
position in an industry or sector that is the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of 
itself, to establish the national importance of a specific endeavor. Furthermore, and as stated above, 
it is not the industry or field that the individual will work in but the prospective impact the proposed 
endeavor will have that is the focus of prong one. None of the reports provided discuss the Petitioner's 
specific endeavor or its impact. As such, while the reports provide a background to better understand 
the industry or field in which the Company will operate, they are insufficient to establish the national 
importance of his endeavor. 
Upon de novo review, we acknowledge that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has positive objectives, 
and while his assertions underscore the substantial merit of his endeavor, they do not establish that the 
Company's services have a potential prospective impact beyond the individual clients the Company 
will serve. We further note that his assertions with respect to the "urgent need to attract additional 
STEM talent to the United States to strengthen the U.S. economy and its technological competitiveness 
with China and other developed nations," and the quotes he takes from various Biden Administration 
statements addressing the need for STEM graduates for the United States to remain competitive, are 
not directly addressed by his proposed endeavor. Many proposed endeavors that aim to advance 
STEM technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, not only have substantial 
merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, but also have sufficiently broad potential 
implications to demonstrate national importance. Dhanasar at 890. Here, however, the record does 
not suggest that the Petitioner intends to advance STEM technologies and research in supply chain 
management. While the Petitioner intends for the Company to offer supply chain consultant services 
to its clients, he has not established how the Company would affect STEM employment levels in his 
industry or attract STEM talent consistent with national importance or the government initiatives he 
references. 
Lastly, throughout the record of proceedings, the Petitioner asserts that the "endeavor's importance is 
established by the importance of the supply chain sector." In Dhanasar, we 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, 
such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." 
Dhanasar at 889. Here, we considered the Petitioner's assertion that he will create "innovative 
technological processes such as fusion of constrain theory systems, of intelligent accommodation 
(Slotting)," however, these terms are not sufficiently defined or explained to establish that his services 
are innovative or differ from the supply chain and logistics methods already in practice in the United 
States. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond his clients to impact his field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
6 
Nor has he shown that the work he proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute 
to advancements or otherwise has broader implications for his field. Furthermore, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that his specific endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without evidence regarding any 
projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his work, the Petitioner has not 
established that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his endeavor would reach the 
level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
C. Dhanasar 's Second and Third Prongs 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor , we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third 
Dhanasar prongs . See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reach") ; see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&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, he has 
not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons . 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7