dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 26, 2024 In Re: 33319133 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of supply chain management, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
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 pursuant to 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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 
classification, they must then demonstrate 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 ofDhanasar, 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; 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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 determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has 
established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in 
the national interest. 
In his definitive statement, the Petitioner states he plans to work as an entrepreneur in the supply chain 
management field. Through his endeavor, he intends to provide specialized outsourcing and 
supply-chain management to U.S. companies via four main service lines: supply chain consultancy; 
supply chain purchase outsourcing; negotiation and procurement training; and searches for alternative 
suppliers. The company's goal is to help customers shorten industrial processes, as well as increase 
productivity and business sustainability. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance 
under Dhanasar 's first prong. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director imposed "novel 
substantive and evidentiary requirements" and a stricter standard of proof than that of a preponderance 
of the evidence. In addition, with respect to the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner 
contends that the Director "did not give due regard" to the evidence submitted, suggesting that the 
Director did not properly weigh his previously submitted resume, business plan, evidence of his work 
in the field, letters of recommendation, and industry reports and articles, which he claims show his 
endeavor's national importance. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's appellate claims but, nevertheless, conclude that the documentation 
in the record does not sufficiently establish the proposed endeavor's national importance as required 
by Dhanasar 's first prong. 2 Further, we see no evidence that the Director imposed novel requirements 
or an incorrect standard of proof The Petitioner has not elaborated on these claims or pointed to 
specific instances of this that persuade us otherwise. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. at 889. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we 
look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and 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 889-90. 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact rises to 
the level of national importance. The Petitioner claims that his endeavor will significantly contribute 
to the economic growth and job creation in this nation. According to his business plan, the Petitioner 
claims he will employ 12 people with a revenue of $2,270,000 in the first year of operation, increasing 
to 390 people with a revenue of $47,300,000 by the fifth year of operation. The Petitioner contends 
his work will result in $1. 7 million in tax revenue over the course of five years. 
The Petitioner, however, has provided little explanation or corroboration for the bases of these 
projections and has not sufficiently elaborated on how the projected revenue and proposed 
employment numbers will impact the area of intended operations, including in HUBZones. 3 For 
example, the Petitioner has not explained his revenue data's significance or how that data shows that 
any potential benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, the Petitioner has not 
elaborated on the relevance of his employment numbers and detailed how such future staffing levels 
would provide substantial economic benefits to Florida or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. As such, even if these projections were more than 
conjecture, we would still conclude that the Petitioner had not established that the endeavor would 
operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance. While any increased business activity has 
the potential to positively impact the economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic 
activity resulting from his individual supply chain management business-the specific endeavor 
proposed here-would rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner also asserts that his company will "enhance[e] the United States' supply chain 
management capabilities" and "revolutionize procurement and logistics for U.S. companies." He 
contends that his company is "set to deliver unparalleled productivity gains and costs savings, 
specifically targeting the complex sourcing challenges that businesses face both domestically and 
internationally, with a specialized focus on Latin America." Despite these claims, however, the 
Petitioner does not specifically detail how he will accomplish these sizeable objectives through his 
endeavor. While the evidence may support that his endeavor stands to positively impact his individual 
employees and business clients, it does not demonstrate how his endeavor will have a broader impact 
consistent with national importance. For instance, while the Petitioner argues that his business will 
empower U.S. companies to be more competitive on a global scale by ensuring timely fulfillment and 
efficient capacity planning, he does not explain how these objectives differ from the typical goals of a 
supply chain management company or how meeting these goals would otherwise stand to broadly 
impact the logistics, manufacturing, or supply chain industries more broadly. 
3 The HUBZone program's goal is to promote business growth in underutilized business zones by awarding 3% of federal 
contract dollars to companies that are HUBZone-certified. Joining the HUBZone program makes a business eligible to 
compete for certain federal contracts in the "set-aside" category. There are several required qualifications to participate in 
the program, but the most dispositive requirement for purposes of our analysis is that the business seeking to participate in 
the HUBZone program must be at least 51 % owned by U.S. citizens, a community development corporation, an agricultural 
cooperative, an Alaska Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. While it is unknown and 
the record is silent as to whether any federal programs exist in the "set-aside" category for endeavors like the one the 
Petitioner proposes, it appears as though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be wholly owned and controlled by the 
Petitioner and that the Petitioner is not a U.S. citizen, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative. 
an Alaska Native corporation. a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. We, therefore, question whether the 
Petitioner would even be eligible to participate in the HUBZone program. 
3 
We have also reviewed the Petitioner's industry reports and articles, which included documents 
addressing topics such as labor shortages, the importance of sustainability in business, immigrant 
entrepreneurs, and the logistics and manufacturing industries. Additionally, we have considered the 
Petitioner's assertions that his proposed endeavor closely aligns with federal initiatives, which he 
claims underscores the strategic priority of supply chain resilience and efficiency in the United States. 
The articles and reports, however, provide only general background information on these subjects and 
do not specifically relate to or discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, including how his specific 
endeavor might impact these areas more broadly, such that it rises to the level of national importance. 
While we acknowledge the overall economic importance of entrepreneurs, immigrants, sustainability 
in business, and the supply chain field generally, the pertinent question is not the importance of the 
field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work. Instead, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Simply working in an important 
field is insufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance. 
Likewise, the Petitioner's argument that his proposed endeavor has national importance due to the 
shortage of workers in the supply chain management field is unpersuasive. The record contains 
insufficient evidence that the proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed 
national shortage. Further, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the 
U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
We have also reviewed the expert opinion letter written by an associate professor atl
I I as well as other support letters written by the Petitioner's former work colleagues. 
However, they provide little explanation to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. The professor's letter comments on the Petitioner's expertise and the importance 
of the supply chain field generally but does not specifically discuss the Petitioner's future work or his 
business plan. Additionally, while the professor opines that the Petitioner's services will "significantly 
contribute to the nation's economy by optimizing U.S. companies' resources, increasing productivity, 
reducing costs, and generating revenue," the letter does not specifically detail how the Petitioner's 
endeavor would accomplish these goals or how any impact would extend beyond the direct clients that 
the Petitioner will serve. Similarly, while the support letters praise the Petitioner's personal attributes 
and past contributions to the workplace, they do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or 
specific impact thereof, including any potential broader implications of his work. As such, the letters 
are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong. 
Because the Petitioner has not established through sufficient evidence in the record that his proposed 
endeavor meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining issues concerning whether he has established 
eligibility under the remaining two Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofD-L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568, 576-77 n.10 (BIA 
2022) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We, 
therefore, 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