dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 7, 2023 In Re: 27892437 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a logistician, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or, in the alternative, 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 determined that the record 
does not establish the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability; 
however, the Director did not comment on whether, in the alternative, the record establishes the 
Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Instead, 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 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. 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 I&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 determined that the record does not establish the Petitioner qualifies for 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability; however, the Director did not address whether 
the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 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 of L-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 "goal ... to create new transportation services for 
small companies or personal shipments." The Petitioner elaborated that she "partnered with an 
important company which will provide the drop shipping [s]ervices for Walmart clients." She also 
stated, "The company I create, and lead will provide quality services and options for those starting in 
this world of supply chain." She further asserted that her endeavor will "generate new employment in 
office and field work." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner resubmitted a copy of the same 
description of the proposed endeavor, addressed above. She also submitted a letter from I I 
I I a Trofessor and coordinator of project and supply chain management at I I 
University at _ I The Petitioner asserts that I I letter about her proposed 
endeavor establishes her endeavor has national importance. The letter reiterates that the Petitioner 
"will create job opportunities for individuals in the U.S. and promote economic growth through her 
company." The letter also provides generalized information about the supply chain management 
industry. 
The Director concluded that the record establishes the proposed endeavor "has substantial merit," as 
required by the first Dhanasar prong. However, the Director "has not demonstrated that her endeavor 
is of national importance and has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework." More 
specifically, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's brief description of her proposed endeavor, 
2 
addressed above; however, the Director concluded that "this summary does not include the depth and 
breadth of the impact the [Petitioner] will have on the supply chain on the United States." The Director 
also noted that the record does not establish the proposed endeavor "stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond the individuals [she] would serve, to impact the business management industry or field more 
broadly." Furthermore, the Director noted that the record does not establish how the endeavor "would 
have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial positive economic effects." 
In addition to concluding that the record does not establish the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong, the Director also concluded the record does not 
satisfy the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that her "entry into the United States will substantially benefit the 
U.S. economy through the creation ofjobs." She also asserts that "supporting the growth of small and 
medium-sized enterprises pay dividends for all U.S. citizens by increasing tax revenues to the federal 
and state governments," referencing the I I letter submitted in response to the Director's RFE. 
The Petitioner also states that her endeavor "stands to improve the societal and cultural welfare of the 
United States," again referencing the I I letter. She further asserts that the proposed endeavor 
"aligns with multiple government initiatives relating to securing the U.S. [ s ]upply [ c ]hain," again 
referencing thel lletter, which in tum references Executive Order 14,017, a copy of which she 
also submitted in response to the RFE. 
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 889-90. 
First, although the Petitioner asserts on appeal that she will "bring jobs to the United States," she does 
not elaborate on the types ofjobs her endeavor will create; the number ofjobs her endeavor will create; 
the location and wages of the employees hired for those jobs; comparative data about existing jobs of 
the same type( s) at the respective location( s ); and other details that would inform whether the proposed 
endeavor has "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." See id. Similarly, th~ lletter opines 
that "600,000 new jobs will be created in transportation and material moving by 2026 owing to 
increased consumer spending, resulting in greater delivery needs," without elaborating on the location 
and wages of the employees hired for those jobs or providing comparative data that would inform 
whether the creation of those 600,000 jobs would have substantial positive economic effects. See id. 
Notably, however, thel Iletter indicates that those 600,000 jobs are anticipated to be created 
by 2026, regardless of whether the Petitioner performs her proposed endeavor. Particularly given the 
lack of information regarding the jobs the Petitioner asserts her endeavor would create and the 
location(s) where those jobs would be created,I lopinion that "600,000 new jobs will be 
created in transportation and material moving by 2026," regardless of the Petitioner's endeavor, casts 
doubt that her particular endeavor would have "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... 
3 
other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area" in context. 
Id. at 889-90. 
Next, the Petitioner paraphrases the I I letter, asserting on appeal that, as a consequence of her 
transportation services company, unspecified other "small and medium-sized enterprises" will 
generally "improve operations and achieve better productivity and profitability levels, therefore 
generating revenues within the country and creating employment opportunities." Aside from 
generating unspecified jobs, as discussed above, the Petitioner asserts that a consequence of 
unspecified enterprises generally improving operations and increasing their revenue is that "tax 
revenues to the federal and state governments" would also increase by some unspecified amount. In 
tum, she posits that this unspecified increase in tax revenue would increase "the funds available to 
spend on hospitals, schools, roads, and other essential services." However, as noted above, neither 
the Petitioner nor I !provide more details regarding any particular enterprise's anticipated 
productivity improvement, its revenue increase, and a consequential tax revenue increase, beyond 
generalized economic theories regarding economic growth. As noted above, "to assess national 
importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See id. 
at 889. The record does not establish how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake 
would increase tax revenues by any particular amount and other information that would establish 
whether such results would amount to "substantial positive economic effects." Id. at 889-90. 
Next, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the "proposed endeavor will broadlfi enhance societal 
welfare or cultural enrichment," and she quotes paragraphs from the I letter that provide 
generalized information about the e-commerce industry. However, as addressed above, 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 id. at 889. Neither the Petitioner nor the
I I letter elaborate on any particular aspect of generalized "societal welfare" or culture the 
proposed endeavor will enhance or enrich, any particular location in which welfare and culture would 
be enhanced or enriched, how the endeavor would accomplish such enhancement or enrichment, or 
other information that would establish the proposed endeavor has broader implications such as 
"substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
Next, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that her proposed endeavor "aligns with multiple government 
initiatives relating to securing the U.S. [ s ]upply [ c ]hain." To support this assertion, the Petitioner 
quotes a paragraph from thel lletter, stating that Executive Order 14,017 "mandates a pair of 
government-led supply-chain reviews." Thel lletter summarizes that the first of those reviews 
"concludes, public and private-sector procurement and supply chain organizations ought to prepare 
for potential legislative, policy, or regulatory changes." Th~ Iletter further warns that if those 
potential legislative, policy, or regulatory changes are enacted, "they will likely add complexity and 
cost to [supply chain organizations'] governance, risk management, and compliance efforts." The 
I I letter then opines that the Petitioner "will build a level of redundancy and resilience into 
supply chains ... [a]s a supply chain expert." Although thel lletter then summarizes the 
general job description of a supply chain manager, it does not elaborate on how the Petitioner and her 
proposed endeavor will have "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as 
those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. Again, 
although the proposed supply chain endeavor and the supply chain industry may "align[]," in 
4 
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 id. at 889. We farther note that 
an increase in an industry's "governance, risk management, and compliance ... complexity" does not 
lead to the conclusion that the industry-or any particular endeavor within that industry-has national 
importance. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. 
We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third 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. 
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. 
5