dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 26387957 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 27, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in supply chain management , seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification . 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 Petitioner had not 
established 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest. " Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• 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. 
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) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal 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. 
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner initially provided a statement indicating: 
I seek employment as an independent business owner in the field of supply chain 
management (SCM) and logistics, serving clients and customers across the US. Modem 
supply chains are the engines that drive advances in the design, manufacture, and 
distribution of products and services, spurring economic growth. 
I will be able to develop efficient approaches to the supply chain which will allow 
enhancing resilience in SCM and Logistics via a 360-degree approach to provide 
comprehensive, compatible, and affordable solutions, optimize inventory turns and 
portfolio management, decrease the level of potential out of stocks and create employment 
opportunities .... 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner claimed: 
[The Petitioner] is seeking employment in the United States of America as Entrepreneur 
in the field of Trucking. In the United States, Trucking is a significant source of economic 
growth. Trucking continues to be critical to the United States, as its health has a 
significant impact on the US economy in various ways. 
By carrying out the [ the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor of being an independent business 
owner in the field of Trucking in the United States, the [Petitioner] will help contribute to 
the country's economy. Through the execution of her proposed endeavor, the [Petitioner] 
will directly help create additional jobs for American workers, a clear and substantive 
impact that speaks to the national importance of said endeavor. In addition, by 
contributing to the growth of the American economy, the [Petitioner] will contribute 
significantly to the societal welfare of American citizens. Furthermore, the [Petitioner's] 
work is clearly and directly related to a number of government initiatives, programs, and 
departments, all of which indicate that the company's work improves the quality of these 
American households and is therefore of national importance and will be in the field of 
substantial merit. 
The Director determined the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor's substantial merit but not 
its national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner states she "will continue to promote her business, 
2 
____ contributing to the supply chain markets in the United States." Although she initially 
claimed to "seek employment as an independent business owner in the field of [SCM] and logistics," the 
Petitioner did not allege operating a trucking company. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time filing and continuing through 
adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). In fact, the Petitioner's documentation in response to the 
Director's RFE, such as I I business plan, licensing and financial evidence, and intended 
partnership agreements, reflects dates after the issuance of the Director's RFE. 2 A petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 
22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1988). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 
I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981 ), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to 
the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. Accordingly, we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed 
proposed endeavor of creating and operating I 
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 specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Although the Petitioner 
initially discussed the importance of developing efficient approaches to the supply chain, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor rather than the 
importance of SCM and logistics. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of 
the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]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 addition, while the Petitioner stressed "14 years of outstanding professional experience," the 
Petitioner's experience and abilities in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue 
here is whether the specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake has national importance under 
Dhanasar's first prong. 
Moreover, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. The 
Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions that the 
prospective impact of continuing her work as an entrepreneur in SCM and logistics rises 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. Here, the record does not show through supporting documentation how her 
entrepreneurship stands to sufficiently extend beyond her own company or with other companies 
conducting business with the Petitioner, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at 
a level commensurate with national importance. 
2 The Petitioner's RFE statement reflects that "[a]s of June 2022 I am directing the operation of the ____ company 
.... "; the Director issued the RFE in May 2022. 
3 
Finally, the Petitioner did not establish that her initial proposed endeavor has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, 
the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from being 
an independent business owner would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of her eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 
issues in the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4