dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 28, 2023 In Re: 28423301 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a logistician, seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, 
arts or business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director did not address whether 
the Petitioner qualified for second-preference classification as either a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability. However, 
the Director concluded 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 53 7, 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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree 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. 
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 l&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, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) that the noncitizen 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, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director did not address whether the Petitioner qualified for second-preference 
classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative, 
as an individual of exceptional ability. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act. Because we nevertheless 
find that the record does not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a 
labor certification, would be in the national interest, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the 
Petitioner satisfies second-preference eligibility criteria. See id.; see also INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision 
of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 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). 
Initially, the Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan "to apply for the position of [d]irector of 
[ o ]perations or [ f]inances [ for his employer,! Iwhen the 
position opens." The Petitioner further stated that, "[i]n the meantime, [he] plans to apply to other 
large companies that have an impact across the U.S. including Sazerac, Brown Forman, Coca Cola 
[sic], Anheuser-Bush, and others"; however, the Petitioner did not elaborate on any particular position 
at those alternative companies for which he plans to apply. The Petitioner summarized his potential 
duties asl !director of operations or finances as follows: 
• Providing analysis and good internal and external communication with clients. 
• Maintaining and maximizing gross profit margin. 
• Managing ROI (Return On Investment) programs, maintaining brand growth, and 
understanding how to maximize profit by choosing the size and volume of the 
product as the market [sic]. 
• Providing variance analysis for better performance. 
• KPI creation (key performance indicators). 
• Creating financial statements and gross profit reports as monthly forecasting. 
• Working with suppliers and overseeing all supplier funds. 
• Keeping the inventory low and avoiding out-of-stock issues. 
• Using MicroStrategy, Alpha, Oracle, Vistaar, and Pocket advantage ( computer 
programs that are required) to manage data. 
• Anticipating problems and creating solutions. 
• Identifying brands and creating new opportunities for them. 
2 
In response to the Director's notice of intent to deny (NOID), the Petitioner reasserted that he "intends 
to apply for the position of [ d]irector of [ o ]perations or [ f]inances at I I when the position opens" 
and that "[i]n the meantime, [he] plans to apply to other large companies that have an impact across 
the U.S., including Sazerac, Brown Forman, Coca-Cola, Anheuser-Busch, and others." He stated that 
his "intention is to offer my services to U.S. companies, and help them to improve their financial and 
logistics sectors." The Petitioner also submitted generalized information regarding logistics and 
financial analysis. 
The Director observed that "the [P]etitioner would be limited to serving the companies he will be 
potentially working with" but the record did not establish the endeavor "may potentially extend 
beyond the organization and its clients to impact the field more broadly." The Director also concluded 
that the record did not establish "the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects," 
referencing Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The Director further noted that, because the record did 
not establish the proposed endeavor has national importance, addressing the second and third 
Dhanasar prongs "would serve no meaningful purpose." Likewise, the Director did not address 
whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. 
at 889-90. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his employer promoted him "to the position of [ s ]enior [ a ]nalyst," 
which "translates how important he is tol IThe Petitioner 
also repeats information already in the record regarding his employment history, a performance award 
~loyer gave him, and his development of "an inventory model to be implemented in all states 
L__J is in ... [that] will enhance [the] company's services, increase their operations and the 
distribution capability [and enable] producers to get their products sold by retailers." The Petitioner 
also repeats information already in the record regarding the scope of his employer's business operation 
and its workforce size. The Petitioner asserts that he is "not only responsible to maintain the current 
14,000 employees, but is essential to enablel I[sic] to create jobs as long as its operation expands 
to new states and the jobs of those companies they provide their services." He further states that he 
"plays a critical role atl lin distributing its client's [sic] products to large retailers in the United 
States, such as Costco, Total Wine, Walmart, and Kroger." 
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." See Dhanasar, 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" and endeavors that have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 888-90. 
In general, the Petitioner's focus on how important he may be and, by extension, how important his 
proposed endeavor may be to his employer and its clients is misplaced. As noted, Dhanasar 
contemplates endeavors that may have national importance as those that have "national or even global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances" or other such broad implications that extend beyond benefitting a 
3 
petitioner's employer and its clients. Id. Although the Petitioner asserts on appeal that his recent 
promotion "translates how important he is to I l" he does not 
support his assertion with credible evidence of how important his promotion above an entry-level 
position actually translates, such as information regarding the qualifications required for his new 
position, the number of other workers his employer also promoted to such a position during his two­
year employment at the company, and similar details. In tum, the Petitioner's reassertions of 
information already in the record regarding a performance award his employer gave him and an 
inventory model he designed that his employer uses do not address how the prospective, proposed 
endeavor may have "national or even global implications within a particular field," extending beyond 
a particular employer, its clients, and the particular distribution chain. See id. Even if the record on 
appeal established "how important [the Petitioner] is to [his employer]," again, the focus of 
determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar 
expands beyond an individual's importance to his own employer and its clients. See id. 
Next, the Petitioner does not support his assertions on appeal regarding his responsibility for 
maintaining not only his employer's 14,000-employee workforce but also the workforces of his 
employer's suppliers and distributors with credible, supporting evidence. Although the Petitioner's 
employer and its suppliers and distributors may have maintained their workforce during the 
Petitioner's two-year employment at~---------------~ the record does not 
establish how that correlation indicates a causal connection between the Petitioner's job performance 
and the other workers' continuing employment. Likewise, the record does not establish how the 
Petitioner's proposed, prospective endeavor of "apply[ing] for the position of [ d]irector of [ o ]perations 
or [f]inances [for his employer.I ~ when the position opens," 
may have a causal connection to any employment trend among the respective companies. Moreover, 
the Petitioner's assertion that "[i]n the meantime, [he] plans to apply to other large companies that 
have an impact across the U.S. including Sazerac, Brown Forman, Coca Cola [sic], Anheuser-Bush, 
and others," conflicts with his assertion that his job performance atl I 
I Ihas a causal connection to the respective companies' workforce trends. The record does not 
clarify what the implications of the Petitioner working for Sazerac, Brown Forman, Coca-Cola, or 
Anheuser-Bush "in the meantime" while he awaits a director of operations or finances position 
opening at~______________ ____,would be for its 14,000 employees or for its 
suppliers' and distributors' workforces, especially if his job performance at his existing employer has 
the causal nexus he asserts it has. Relatedly, although the Petitioner states on appeal that he "is 
essential ... to create jobs" for his employer and its suppliers and distributors, the Petitioner does not 
provide further details regarding jobs he asserts he is essential to create for any particular entity, such 
as the number of positions, the type of positions, the wages for the positions, the locations where the 
employees would work, and other information that would assist in establishing whether the proposed 
endeavor has "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. 
Next, the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that he "plays a critical role at I lin distributing its 
client's [sic] products to large retailers in the United States" in the context of determining whether the 
proposed endeavor may have national importance is misplaced. As addressed above, the first 
Dhanasar prong contemplates "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as 
those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances," beyond 
implications a proposed endeavor may have to an employer or its clients and suppliers. Id. Moreover, 
4 
we take administrative notice that the "large retailers in the United States" referenced by the Petitioner 
already sold his employer's clients' products before the date on which the Petitioner's employer hired 
him, which casts doubt on how critical his personal role has been or will be for distributing his 
employer's clients' products to those retailers. 
We further note that the Petitioner's general premise on appeal of a zero-sum scenario disserves his 
assertions that the proposed endeavor may have substantial positive economic effects and, thus, 
national importance. See id. Specifically, on appeal the Petitioner presents the scenario as follows: 
If one load is delayed or harmed by any incident, the products will not be on the shelves 
available to the customers. If products are not available, customers will look for similar 
options, and choose other brands. It has the potential to impact the overall results for 
those companies that rely on the distribution of their goods to I I A negative 
impact on the results may put some of the job positions at risk. [The Petitioner] is 
essential in maintaining employment in all companies! lserves. 
Although the Petitioner describes potential adverse consequences to his employer and its suppliers and 
distributors in the event of a problem within his employer's supply chain, he also describes potential 
positive consequences to the suppliers and distributors within the supply chain of the "other brands" 
he references that customers would choose. Conversely, if the proposed endeavor would avert 
potential adverse consequences to his employer and its suppliers and distributors and, rather, cause 
positive consequences, it would also appear to cause the types of "negative impact on the results [that] 
may put some of the job positions at risk" for the suppliers and distributors within the supply chain of 
the "other brands." In short, both distribution patterns appear to have the same types of positive and 
negative effects, and the primary difference is whether the Petitioner's employer and its clients, or the 
competitors, would experience the positive or negative effects. We note that the record does not 
reconcile whether the potential positive economic effects for the Petitioner's employer's competitors 
in the event of a "negative impact on the results" for the Petitioner's employer may actually equal or 
exceed the potential positive economic effects in the converse circumstances-rather, the Petitioner 
focuses on how the proposed endeavor would benefit his employer and its suppliers and distributors 
to the exclusion of their competitors and their employees. See id. 
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, and 
whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. As noted above, we 
also reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the Petitioner is eligible for second­
preference classification. See id. 
5 
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. 
6