dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 24, 2024 In Re: 31474233 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(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. 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, concluding that the record did not 
establish either the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification or that a waiver of the 
classification's job offer requirement is 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. 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 immigrant 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter 
of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, 1 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that he is a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree, and as such did not establish that he qualifies for the EB-2 classification. The 
Director further found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility under any of the three required 
prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework, and therefore did not establish that a waiver of the job 
offer requirement was in the national interest. The Petitioner listed Chief Executive Officer as the job 
title under Part 6 on the petition. He proposes to nm his company, 
inl IFlorida. In the Petitioner's business plan, the Petitioner stated his, "effort will contribute 
to the development and growth of U.S. small, medium and large-sized businesses, as his company will 
offer specialized logistics services in the road transport area" and his goal is "to support American 
companies in the management and planning of their logistic activities." Because, for the reasons 
discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established the first prong of 
the Dhanasar framework, we reserve our opinion on the question of the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
EB-2 classification. 2 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 25, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not 
required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
Regarding the Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver, in analyzing the first Dhanasar prong 
the Director concluded that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance. 
Specifically, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his specific endeavor 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. The Director observed that in response to the request for evidence, the Petitioner 
submitted a revised business plan in which he attempted to make material changes to the petition from 
the initial proposition of creating 22 jobs by year 5 to creating 15 jobs by year 5 in addition to the 
name change from to The Director 
determined that the business plan held limited evidentiary value as it related to the material change to 
the petition because a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l2); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). The Director addressed the 
opinion letter from noting that it lacked relevance because it discussed the importance 
of the Petitioner's industry and past employment rather than addressing how the specific proposed 
endeavor would affect prospective substantial economic impact in the larger field of supply chain 
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 To qualify as a noncitizen of exceptional ability under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, the noncitizen must meet at least 
three of the six criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii) or may submit comparable evidence to establish their ability 
under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii). The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that at least three of the six criteria, 
nor did he declare and demonstrate why the standards did not readily apply to his occupation based on the comparable 
evidence he submitted. 
2 
management and logistics and overall satisfy the national importance element. The Director reviewed 
the many articles submitted about the importance of supply chain management and logistics in the 
U.S. economy but noted the Petitioner did not address how a small business such as the one he 
proposed could impact the supply chain of the U.S. on a national level. The Director also concluded 
that the Petitioner had not shown that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his 
proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director abused their discretion in determining that the 
record does not establish the endeavor's national importance and did not sufficiently evaluate or 
address the evidence submitted. The Petitioner notes that there is a STEM talent gap which is a 
significant concern in the United States and that he is a foreign expert who intends to bring his 
expertise and entrepreneurial venture to the United States thus directly contributing to the expansion 
of the qualified workforce in STEM fields. The Petitioner further asserts that the Director only focused 
on the substantial potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial economic effects even though 
the Petitioner "touched on all the aspects that should be considered by users when evaluating the 
proposed endeavor's national importance." He argues that the Director should evaluate whether the 
proposed endeavor would further activities recognized as having national importance by a government 
agency or institution as outlined in the users Policy Manual. See generally, 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.5(D)(2), https//uscis.gov/policymanual. Accordingly, the Petitioner asserts that his proposed 
endeavor substantially develops and promotes some technologies, industries, and fields officially 
recognized as important to the nation's competitiveness and technological leadership. The Petitioner 
argues that his expertise and endeavor fall within the Department of Homeland Security's STEM 
Designated Degree Program List under the Transportation and Materials Moving and Hazardous 
Materials Management and Waste Technology/Technician thus demonstrating the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner refers to two of our non-precedent decisions concerning 
STEM related endeavors. However, these decisions were not published as a precedent and therefore 
do not bind users officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § l 03.3( c ). 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that is 
regionally focused may nevertheless have national importance, such as an endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, and in support of the Petitioner's claims regarding the growing demand for logistics and 
transportation, the Petitioner submits several articles discussing Vagas.com for salaries and job 
responsibilities in Brazil; Glassdoor's assessment of chief executive officers; articles on the global 
reach of Nestle and Pfizer, and various articles on the overall importance of STEM innovators and the 
Biden-Harris Administration's support for STEM talent. Because the Petitioner was put on notice and 
given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not consider it for the first time on 
appeal. See 8 e.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(11) (requiring all requested evidence be submitted together at one 
time); Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (declining to consider new evidence 
submitted on appeal because "petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a 
3 
reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial"). There is no question that supply 
chain management and logistics are important, however, there is not sufficient documentary evidence 
in the record to demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has the potential to impact these 
fields at a level commensurate with national importance. In determining national importance, the 
relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will 
work; instead, we focus on the potential prospective impact of the "specific endeavor that the 
[ noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. These articles submitted on appeal do not discuss 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, its potential impact, or otherwise demonstrate that the endeavor 
stands to have an impact on supply chain management and logistics industries that would rise to the 
level of national importance. 
We conclude, upon de novo review, that the Petitioner's business plan, and the other information in 
the record regarding his proposed company, do not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. The business plan states that the Petitioner will personally invest $50,000 for the pre­
opening costs, but at the Director noted, the Petitioner did not submit evidence to establish that he has 
a means for funding, interested U.S.-based customers or investors, or other feasible plans for financial 
support in the United States. As such, we cannot assess whether the business plan's stated job creation 
estimates of 15 jobs by year 5 are credible. Moreover, even if were we to assume that the estimates 
are credible, the record does not contain sufficient documentary evidence to establish that the jobs 
created, would result in "substantial positive economic effects" commensurate with national 
importance as contemplated by Matter ofDhanasar. Id. at 890. Any business or economic activity 
has the potential to positively impact the economy and the industry in which it operates; however, the 
Petitioner has not offered a sufficiently direct connection between his company's activities and any 
demonstrable economic effect. The record does not contain an evidentiary basis either to support the 
stated economic projections or to conclude that the economic effects of the proposed endeavor have 
the potential to rise to a level of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner's brief explains that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to".... establish 
a company that will provide supply chain management and logistics consultancy services to enterprises 
located in the United States, mainly the ones in need of optimizing their overall supply chain and 
business performance, assisting them in effectively managing the movement and storage of materials 
and goods, and ensuring an optimized flow from the point of origin to the point of consumption, 
touches several other factors that must be addressed by USCIS when determining national importance, 
such as: has national or global implications within a particular field; broadly enhance societal welfare; 
and impacts a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or is the 
subject of national initiatives." However, we conclude that the record does not contain sufficient 
objective, documentary evidence to establish the endeavor's potential prospective impact on logistics 
or supply chain management. Although the Petitioner proffers that he aims to improve ".... the 
nation's Logistics and Supply Chain sector and industries through innovative solutions addressing 
integrated planning and execution of processes required to optimize the flow of materials, information 
and capital," the record does not contain sufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate that the 
company stands to do so at a level that rises to national importance. 
Although the record reflects the Petitioner's intention to establish his company, and provide valuable 
services to his clients, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information or evidence to demonstrate 
that the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In 
4 
Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not extend beyond his students to impact his field more 
broadly. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown 
that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently impact the U.S. economy at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor. Because the documentation in the record does not establish national 
importance as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is 
dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve our opinion regarding 
whether the record satisfies the Petitioner's qualification for the EB-2 classification or the remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 (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 alternative issues on 
appeal where the applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework 
related to national importance, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible 
for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5