dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain And Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 13, 2024 In Re: 33345789 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an operating manager of a supply chain and logistics company, seeks second preference 
immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional 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 . 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 
Once 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 I&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: 
• 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. 
1 See 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The 
Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional because he submitted sufficient evidence of the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in 
business administration and five years of progressive work experience. However, the Director then 
determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the 
Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set forth below, we agree that the Petitioner has not established 
the national importance of his proposed endeavor and we will dismiss the appeal. 
The Petitioner states he plans to start a logistics consulting business in the United States to provide 
economic growth and employment opportunities for U.S. workers. With his petition he submits 
various documents in support, including business plans, his resume, educational documents, numerous 
reference letters, as well as several industry related reports and articles. 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
With respect to the first prong, the Director determined that the Petitioner's endeavor had substantial 
merit, but concluded further that he did not establish his endeavor was of national importance as 
contemplated under the Dhanasar framework because the evidence submitted did not demonstrate that 
the Petitioner's endeavor would have a broad enough impact to be considered nationally important. In 
making this determination, the Director indicated he reviewed the Petitioner's statements and 
marketing reports. The Director also expressed concern with the Petitioner's failure to submit financial 
statements or other evidence to show past performance and his ability to guide his proposed endeavor 
to success. The Director acknowledged the recommendation letters submitted as part of the record, 
but found these letters, "cannot substitute for the benchmarks of success as demonstrated by 
quantitative results .... " 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not submit additional evidence. He claims that the Director's decision, 
as well as the request for evidence issued by the Texas Service Center, made conclusions regarding 
evidence being insufficient without explaining why. He describes how this lack of detail regarding 
why a piece of evidence was deemed insufficient took away his ability to meaningfully appeal the 
Director's decision. He asserts further that the Director's statements regarding the impacts of his 
proposed endeavor having an "overall impact on the economy," implies that to be nationally important 
his endeavor needs to impact the entire U.S. economy. The Petitioner correctly explains how when 
assessing national importance any potential impact should not be judged by geographical breadth 
alone, but broad implications, to even one geographical area can be nationally important. Dhanasar at 
889. 
As stated above, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance 
of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Thus, the Petitioner 
2 
must submit sufficient evidence to prove their eligibility for the benefit sought. Although every piece 
of evidence is considered in our review, the Director is not required to state exactly what is insufficient 
about each piece of evidence. Instead, each piece of evidence is analyzed and considered in its totality 
to determine, overall, whether the Petitioner has met their burden in establishing they are eligible for 
the benefit. Furthermore, the Director's decision was not silent as to the reasons for her finding that 
the proposed endeavor was not nationally important. Here, the decision indicates that the Director 
reviewed the evidence submitted and found it insufficient in showing the Petitioner's endeavor to be 
nationally important because it did not show the broad implications of the endeavor and did not include 
evidence of past successful performance. 
First, we acknowledge that the language used by the Director in stating that the endeavor did not have 
an "overall impact on the economy," could be read as implying that the endeavor needed to impact the 
entirety of the U.S. economy. However, this statement could also be read as reflecting that the 
Petitioner did not show his endeavor had broad enough impacts generally to be considered nationally 
important. In addition, the Petitioner reflects on appeal the correct standard and appears to understand 
that his endeavor could show broad implications to a geographic region or area and be considered 
nationally important. Thus, we do not find that this ambiguous phrase took away the Petitioner's 
meaningful opportunity for an appeal. Second, the issue regarding past successes is more appropriate 
for the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, whether the individual is well-positioned to advance 
their proposed endeavor, and will not be discussed further in regard to whether the proposed endeavor 
is of national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor is of national importance because it will address the 
complexities of procurement and international trade, supporting a national initiative to secure and 
strength the U.S. supply chain. The Petitioner also indicates that his endeavor will contribute to 
economic growth by creating opportunities for employment and revenue growth directly through his 
company and indirectly through his client companies. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director that the record does not establish, by a preponderance 
of the evidence, that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have national importance. In Dhanasar 
we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for 
broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting that "[a ]n undertaking may have national 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." 
Id. 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. In Dhanasar we determined 
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. Id. at 893. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor will have a broad impact we look to evidence substantiating the "potential prospective 
impact" of his work. 
The Petitioner claims his endeavor involves creating a supply chain in the United States that is more 
innovative and resilient. He emphasizes that strengthening and securing the U.S. supply chain is part 
of a national initiative. We do not disagree that strengthening and securing the U.S. supply chain is a 
3 
national initiative, however the record does not show how the Petitioner's endeavor will support a 
more innovative and resilient supply chain. For instance, this national initiative centers around 
strengthening the supply chain of essential materials in goods to the U.S. market. Here, the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor shows he will provide consulting services for four clientele companies who import 
and sell products such as t-shirts, entertainment merchandise, baseball caps, and car battery 
components. These are not essential goods and materials as described in the national initiative 
presented in the record. Furthermore, although the Petitioner describes how he aids companies with 
logistics and trade, the Petitioner does not show that the has innovated- creating ways in which his 
methods would contribute to a more secure and strong supply chain of essential goods and materials 
into the United States. 
In addition, the Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to 
undertake would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial positive 
economic effects. Although the Petitioner plans to create employment opportunities in Florida, he has 
not shown that his company's future staffing levels, five employees in the first year and 16 employees 
by year five, stands to provide substantial economic benefits so broadly as to be nationally important. 
Similarly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake will 
offer other substantial positive economic effects for the country. While the Petitioner claims he will 
generate over two million in revenue by year five of his operations, he does not sufficiently support 
these projections with objective data as necessary to demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or 
national economy resulting from the undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Accordingly, we affirm the Director's decision that the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the 
first prong of the Dhanasar framework. For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar 
precedent decision. 
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. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar 's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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 an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4