dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 15, 2024 In Re: 31678662 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a commercial administrator with a focus on logistics, seeks second preference 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an 
individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this EB-2 classification. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 
8 U.S.C. § ll 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. 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. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 1 While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (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,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. 
1 The Director found the Petitioner established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigration classification and we agree. 
2 See also 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
Id. 
The Petitioner intends to "work as a Coordinator or Manager or Director and/or consultant in the field 
of Logistic[s] applied to the Mass Consumption Products Industry in the United States." On appeal, 
as it specifically relates to the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner claims 
the Director failed to recognize his concrete achievements and the broader implications of his proposed 
endeavor as Logistics Manager and Consultant. He asserts his proposed endeavor "goes beyond 
benefiting just his immediate clients"; he plans "to revolutionize logistics and supply chain 
management by implementing cutting-edge technologies like SAP PM, externalizing fleets, and 
reengineering supply chain methodologies"; and "these innovations have the potential to significantly 
impact the logistics field, leading to cost savings for businesses across various industries." Regarding 
the potential economic impact of his endeavor, the Petitioner emphasizes his overall expertise in the 
logistics field and past achievements, such as "reducing distribution costs by 30% and optimizing 
transportation routes by 25%"3 and contends that these achievements "directly translate into 
substantial economic benefits, including cost savings for businesses and increased competitiveness in 
the global market." The Petitioner notes the Director questioned the link between his endeavor and 
government initiatives aimed at strengthening supply chains and argues that his contributions "can 
help create a more robust and efficient supply chain infrastructure, supporting the government's goals 
in this regard." 
Upon review, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision as it relates to prong one of the Dhanasar 
analysis regarding substantial merit and national importance. See Matter of Burbano, 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 this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight 
U.S. Court of Appeals in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below 
as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). The Director reviewed all material 
submitted with the initial filing and in response to a request for evidence, such as the Petitioner's 
professional plan, assertions regarding his intended work with future clients, and an Expert Opinion 
letter; analyzed the Petitioner's national importance claims under the first prong of Dhanasar; and 
discussed their deficiencies in detail. 4 
Here, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor rather than the 
importance of logistics and supply chain management. The relevant question is not the importance of 
the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Further, "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. Also, "[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. 
3 Regarding the Petitioner's claims about his expe1iise, those relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
4 The Director concluded the Petitioner established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor and we agree. 
2 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established his 
proposed endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his future clients to impact the industry or the field 
more broadly, at a level commensurate with national importance. Because the Petitioner did not 
establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the 
Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a 
matter of discretion. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in 
Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 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 of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3