dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 10, 2023 In Re: 28511817 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a supply chain specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director determined that the 
record established the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification but did not 
establish that a discretionary 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. Section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
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. 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 1, grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree and the record supports this conclusion. 2 Therefore, the sole 
issue before us is whether the record establishes that a discretionary waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
Prior to his entry to the United States in 2021, the Petitioner gained approximately seven years of 
professional experience in the supply chain field in purchasing, logistics, inventory management, 
quality engineering, and internal auditing roles. He submitted two personal statements indicating his 
intent to apply his expertise in this field "to assist companies in the United States." Initially, he stated: 
First, I intend to begin working as an employee at one of several companies in the 
United States which I have targeted which would have a need for my services. 
Secondly, long-term, I plan to share my knowledge and expertise with individuals who 
are newly entering the workplace. My plan is to create an outsourcing company that 
will recruit and train employees to become expert anti-fraud professionals and place 
them in supply-chain companies that are in need of these services. 
Subsequently, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a 
"proposed endeavor statement," indicating: 
My proposed endeavor is to build on my extensive experience in supply chain activities 
to develop strategies, measures, and controls to detect and mitigate fraud in US 
companies supply chains. All my experience and skills can be applied to any type of 
company in any economic sector. 
Specifically, my proposed endeavor will be advanced through my work as an internal 
auditor and supply chain expert [and] will reduce instances of fraud and increase the 
overall revenue of the US. My endeavor will be promulgated to my peers and others 
in the field as a whole by and through my participation in conferences and other 
industry events. I will also create unique methods to detect, control and eliminate of 
[sic] all types of fraud in each aspect of supply chain management. 
In a separate personal statement submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner indicated that he 
would "develop fraud detection education programming so that organizations can train others to 
prevent and detect supply chain financial fraud." 
2 The Petitioner provided an official academic record from the Colombian university that issued his undergraduate degree 
and an evaluation of his academic credentials indicating that he holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in 
international business. He also submitted letters from prior employers documenting that he has more than five years of 
post-baccalaureate work experience in the supply chain field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "advanced degree"). 
2 
Although the Director found substantial merit in the proposed endeavor, they concluded the Petitioner 
did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance, that he is well-positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor, and that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would be 
beneficial to the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked credible and probative evidence, 
misapplied the legal standards for adjudication of a national interest waiver petition, and inflated the 
standard of review above the preponderance of the evidence standard. For the reasons provided below, 
we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor 
and therefore is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. While we do not 
discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the noncitizen proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
The record contains media, government and industry reports that emphasize the importance of the 
supply chain across industries, the impact of the global supply chain on the economic health of the 
United States, the prevalence of supply chain fraud and its potential to result in financial and 
reputational harm to businesses, and the challenges facing companies seeking to combat these 
vulnerabilities in the increasingly complex modem supply chain. The submitted evidence also 
identifies internal supply chain audits as one proven method for individual companies to evaluate and 
improve the flexibility and efficiency of their supply chains. Based on this evidence, the record 
supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to assist U.S. companies 
in detecting and preventing fraud and other supply chain inefficiencies has substantial merit. 
However, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" and its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Therefore, while recognize the value of optimizing supply chain 
management as a means of achieving competitiveness and profitability in the business sector, the 
Petitioner's intent to work in this field alone is not sufficient to establish the national importance of 
his proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, we emphasized that "we look for broader implications" of the 
specific 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." 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We 
also stated that "[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. 
The Petitioner states that his endeavor to work for U.S. companies as a supply chain expert and internal 
auditor "will reduce instances of fraud and increase the overall revenue of the US," but he does not 
point to any corroborating evidence to support his general claim that his intended activities would have 
significant positive effects on "overall revenue" in the United States. Further, he did not farther 
elaborate on how his proposed endeavor to work as a supply chain expert and internal auditor for a 
3 
U.S. company will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or will otherwise offer 
substantial economic benefits. Nor did the Petitioner offer evidence that the area where he will 
provide his services is economically depressed. The record contains insufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that his proposed endeavor would employ a significant population of workers, offer a 
target region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business 
activity or tax revenue, or would substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either 
regionally or nationally. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner's proposed activities could result in increased efficiency and cost 
savings for individual companies that employ him, which may have some indirect economic benefits. 
However, the record does not support a determination that any indirect benefits to the U.S. regional or 
national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. at 890. He has not shown 
the impact of his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer to contribute 
to or impact the broader field, job creation, or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national 
importance. Similarly, although the Petitioner submitted a media article which discusses the ongoing 
demand in the industry for persons who possess similar skills, training, and experience, the record 
does not establish that his employment as a supply chain specialist for a U.S. company would 
meaningfully impact this demand or alleviate any shortage of workers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director placed undue focus on whether his proposed 
endeavor would have "substantial positive economic effects," noting that job creation and other direct 
economic impacts, as well as the geographical breadth of the proposed activities, are not the only 
factors that should be considered in weighing the national importance of the proposed endeavor. We 
agree and have also considered whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have broader 
implications in his field or industry. 
We determined in Dhanasar that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Here, 
the Petitioner, in his personal statements, has broadly stated his intent to disseminate his expertise in 
his field through attendance at industry conferences and through development of "fraud detection 
education programming." He also initially identified a long-term plan to create an outsourcing 
company that would train employees to become anti-fraud professionals in the supply chain sector but 
did not include this plan in his subsequent "proposed endeavor statement." Regardless, he did not 
sufficiently elaborate on his plans to provide education and training in his field, or otherwise show 
how his specific endeavor would provide a platform for the introduction of fraud detection techniques 
or methodologies applicable to the broader supply chain sector. Therefore, he did not meet his burden 
to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor would influence or have implications for the broader field 
or industry at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner further asserts on appeal that the Director failed to consider that his proposed endeavor 
will have an impact on matters that are the subject of national initiatives by the U.S. government. He 
points to previously submitted evidence, including a White House Executive Order on America's 
Supply Chains issued in February 2021, and follow-up White House initiatives addressing the security 
of America's supply chain and the improvement of the supply chain data flow. 
4 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will consider evidence demonstrating how a 
specific proposed endeavor impacts a matter that a government entity has described as having national 
importance or a matter that is the subject of national initiatives. Again, in determining national 
importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry 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. 
While the initiatives introduced by the Biden administration in 2021 and 2022 stress the importance of 
strengthening and improving the resilience of America's supply chains, many of the initiatives are aimed 
at the federal government; the evidence does not specifically show the government's interest in the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor or similar endeavors. The Petitioner maintains that his proposed 
endeavor addresses several of the priorities highlighted in the submitted government initiatives. 
However, the fact that a petitioner is qualified for and may accept a position in an industry or sector 
that is the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself: to establish the national 
importance of a specific endeavor. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential prospective 
impact of his specific endeavor in that area of national importance, and he has not met that burden. 
Finally, to illustrate the potential impact of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner pointed to his past 
employment experience and qualifications in the supply chain and internal auditing fields. We 
reviewed his statements and the letters of recommendation from his employers and other professional 
contacts. The authors of the letters praise the Petitioner's abilities and subject-matter expertise as a 
supply chain professional and recount instances in which he has detected fraud and other inefficiencies 
in the supply chain to the benefit of his individual employers. While the authors express their high 
opinion of the Petitioner and his work, they do not discuss his specific proposed endeavor or explain 
why it has national importance. As such, the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the first prong of Dhanasar. Furthermore, we note that the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, 
education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 26 I&N Dec at 890. The issue under the first 
prong is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of his proposed work. 
Overall, the Petitioner's evidence establishes how his endeavor would positively impact his future 
employers, but the evidence does not persuasively establish how his endeavor will have a broader 
impact consistent with national importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that his 
proposed endeavor meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, and he is therefore not eligible 
for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning his eligibility under the second and third 
prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that 
"courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary 
to the results they reach"); see also 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). 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6