dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 11, 2024 In Re: 34873924 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 that although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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. 
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 U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the 
job offer, and thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner 
demonstrates that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that on 
1 See 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). 
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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In the initial filing, the Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor is to "continue working as a Sales 
Manager at I I In said role, he will "provide services to various U.S. logistics 
companies in the areas of pre-sale consulting management, sales support management, strategy 
optimization studies, and operational support management." By doing so, he contends he will "make 
a difference in the supply chain process, which affects shipping and manufacturing and thus will 
positively affect the economy due to better efficiency." 
The Director issued a request for evidence in which they requested, in part, additional evidence to 
establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had national importance, noting that the Petitioner 
has "not shown his proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond I I 
I I and its clients to impact the industry or field more broadly." The Director also noted that the 
Petitioner had not shown that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his 
proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. 
In response to the request for evidence, the Petitioner provided an updated personal statement 
reiterating his proposed endeavor in the United States. The Petitioner also submitted recommendation 
letters, evidence of interviews with prospective employers, and articles and reports about supply chain 
2 
management and logistics. The Petitioner did not provide further detail on the specific prospective 
occupation or proposed endeavor that he would focus on to illustrate the nature of the work that he 
would perform during his day-to-day work activities. Nor did the Petitioner provide a detailed 
description explaining the manner through which he would prospectively deliver these services, 
supported by documentary evidence. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner 
qualified for a national interest waiver because he did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, finding that while the Petitioner had established substantial merit, he had not offered 
sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective benefit of his proposed 
endeavor rose to the level of national importance. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's finding. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting 
and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has 
squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts 
in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give 
"individualized consideration" to the case). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief highlighting the evidence he submitted in support of his 
petition and in response to the Director's request for evidence and maintains that he has demonstrated 
the proposed endeavor's national importance. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence 
individually, we have reviewed the record and have considered the Petitioner's eligibility for the national 
interest waiver. The Petitioner's general objections on appeal regarding his eligibility for the EB-2 
classification are insufficient to overcome the conclusions the Director reached based on the evidence 
submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not articulated on appeal how the Director erred in 
finding that the record did not demonstrate the proposed endeavor has national importance. While the 
evidence of record indicates that the Petitioner has extensive experience, the record does not include 
a plan or other indication of how the Petitioner's endeavor to "continue working as a Sales Manager 
at ______ will impact business at the level of national importance contemplated under 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner has not established on appeal that his intent 
to apply his knowledge to the company and its clients is an activity that will have a broad impact. 
As for the Petitioner's assertions on appeal that his endeavor will "contribute to the overall economic 
health and prosperity of the United States" by "enhancing the ability of U.S. companies to compete 
globally" and will improve "the supply chain process, which will positively affect the economy 
through increased efficiency," he has not established on appeal that the endeavor he proposes to 
undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for the nation. See Id. at 890. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding 
any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not 
show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's pursuits 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. See Id. 
The record does not offer evidence sufficient to translate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of 
providing "pre-sale consulting management, sales support management, strategy optimization studies, 
and operational support management" stands to sufficiently impact U.S. interests or the relevant sector 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
3 
As previously mentioned, 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." Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that his undertaking has implications beyond the companies and clients he elects to 
work with to impact the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. 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. Similarly, the 
record here does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's impact will be nationally 
important. 
The Petitioner also reiterates on appeal that he has been successfully providing the services that 
constitute the proposed endeavor. The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself: not the 
petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must establish that his specific endeavor has national importance under 
Dhanasar 's first prong. Moreover, although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, 
and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong. The 
Petitioner's professional experience is generally material to Dhanasar' s second prong-whether an 
individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are generally immaterial to the 
first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and 
national importance. See id. at 888-91. 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his 
eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See 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"); 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). 
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. 
4