dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 19, 2024 In Re: 30371805 
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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas 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 matter is now before us on appeal. 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 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents a brief but does not add new evidence or arguments to directly 
confront the reasoning the Director provided in the decision. In the request for evidence (RFE) and 
the decision, the Director addressed many of the Petitioner's assertions regarding the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. The Director discussed multiple pieces of evidence individually 
and quoted material in several instances. For example, the Director discussed the Petitioner's 
statements, as well as letters of recommendation and employment verification letters, and the 
submitted articles and reports. The Director further identified numerous deficiencies in the evidence 
and explained specifically why the evidence did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the 
Dhanasar framework. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the first Dhanasar prong. See 
Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. 
Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally 
accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st 
Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the 
decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). Below we provide 
individualized consideration to the petition and to many of the Petitioner's appellate claims. 
The Petitioner asserts the Director abused their discretion in failing to address all evidence, citing 
Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) in support. The court in Buletini, however, did 
not reject the concept of examining the quality of the evidence presented to determine whether it 
establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does the Buletini decision suggest that USCIS abuses its 
discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. When USCIS 
provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be 
required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address 
every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 
2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973,976 (1st Cir.1992); see alsoKazemzadeh v. US. Atty. 
Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. US. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). 
We conclude the record reflects the Director's consideration of all evidence in the totality even though 
the Director did not address each piece of evidence individually. 
The Petitioner contends that his initial filing and RFE response contained ample evidence to establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor from an economic standpoint. However, the 
objective evidence in the record, such as the industry articles and reports, do not reference the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Here, the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance 
of the industry and professions within in it, which the articles and reports demonstrate, as sufficient to 
establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 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 addition, the Petitioner indicates that his personal statement outlines how the proposed endeavor 
will have a positive impact in the economy by improving specific operational processes that will 
enable potential new employment opportunities. In addition, the Petitioner stated that through the 
growth of hub locations to enhance the pharma logistics industry, it will further provide employment 
opportunities and a positive economic effect. However, the Petitioner's personal statement does not 
provide sufficient detail of the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these potential 
employment opportunities will be realized. Nor did record adequately show through supporting 
documentation how the Petitioner's services and improvements stand to sufficiently extend beyond 
his prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient 
evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his 
future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from 
the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The testimonial evidence in the record, such as the recommendation letters, do not analyze the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or offer evidence of its impact. Instead, they outline the 
contributions he made to the industry in his previous employment and general assertions of potential 
to further enhance the logistics of clinical trials. The record does not contain sufficient evidentiary 
basis to conclude that the effects of his specific proposed endeavor will rise to the level of national 
importance. 
2 
Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 1 Further analysis of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
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 USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 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 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3