dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 29, 2023 In Re: 29505222 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a supply chain specialist, 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. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). While neither 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 and states that USCIS may, as a matter 
of discretion, grant a petition if the petitioner demonstrates that: 1) the proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance; 2) the individual is well-positioned to advance their 
proposed endeavor; and, 3) on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United 
States. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish either qualification for the EB-2 classification or that a waiver of the job offer requirement 
is in the national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal, withdrawing the Director's finding as 
to the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification and concluding that this requirement was 
established, but agreeing with the Director that the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility for a 
waiver of the job offer requirement. The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and 
reconsider. 
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). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to 
reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter ofCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. 
464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
In our previous decision dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, incorporated here by reference, we 
concluded that the record did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits a new professional plan for her proposed endeavor of 
operating a consulting business related to supply chain management. The Petitioner asserts that the 
amended plan addresses the deficiencies noted in our decision to dismiss the appeal. Specifically, the 
Petitioner has amended the professional plan to include the claim that the business will create up to 15 
jobs and to add further details about potential salaries and employee benefits, pricing for the business's 
services, and the basis for the price structure. The Petitioner claims that these changes to the 
professional plan demonstrate that the proposed endeavor will produce substantial positive economic 
effects, and therefore overcome our finding that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner also restates claims previously made about the importance 
of supply chain management and the potential for the Petitioner's advisory services to help clients 
achieve more efficiency and profitability in their businesses. 
However, we conclude that the new professional plan does not establish the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor. Although the Petitioner has added a potential job creation estimate-which 
we noted in our appellate decision was missing from the plan-this addition and the accompanying 
salary and benefit information are not sufficient on their own to establish the endeavor's national 
importance. The Petitioner must still demonstrate that the job creation has the potential to result in a 
broad impact commensurate with national importance. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 889-90. But the Petitioner has not done so here. Although the Petitioner asserts that the creation of 
15 jobs and the payment of salaries demonstrates the significant economic impact of the proposed 
endeavor, the Petitioner must support her assertions her relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
Additionally, we conclude that the new price structure information and explanation are more 
appropriate considerations for the second Dhanasar prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to whether the noncitizen is well-positioned to advance it, including the credibility of their 
"model or plan for future activities." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. While the pricing 
information could add credibility to the Petitioner's plan, it does not help to demonstrate the potential 
prospective impact of the endeavor and therefore does not help establish the endeavor's national 
importance. 
Finally, although we have considered the merits of the Petitioner's new plan, we note that, in general, 
material changes made after the filing of a petition need not be considered. See Matter of Izummi, 
22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). In Matter of Izummi, the petitioner submitted 
numerous revisions to a partnership agreement following the director's denial, some of which were 
made specifically to address the "objected-to" provisions and were intended to "render the instant 
petition approvable." Id. at 175. We concluded that those amendments would not be considered in 
adjudicating the petition, because "a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has 
already been filed in an effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to Service 
2 
requirements." Id. at 375-76. Similarly, here, we conclude that the Petitioner's continued revisions 
of her professional plan amount to an attempt to correct a deficient petition after filing. 1 
As to the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, the Petitioner does not claim that our decision to dismiss 
the appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and was incorrect based on the 
evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Instead, the 
Petitioner only contests the correctness of the Director's prior decision regarding the second Dhanasar 
prong and restates similar claims previously made regarding the third Dhanasar prong. But because 
our conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility as to national importance was dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we declined to reach a conclusion as to prongs two and three. As stated 
above, our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). To 
succeed on motion, the Petitioner must first establish that our dismissal of the appeal was based on an 
incorrectly applied law or policy, which she has not done. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (a)(3). The 
Petitioner has not met the regulatory requirements of a motion to reconsider, and we will not consider 
the Petitioner's claims as to the Director's findings and her eligibility regarding the second and third 
Dhanasar prongs. 2 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not met the 
regulatory requirements to establish that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application 
oflaw or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 As the record shows, the Director excluded the original professional plan from consideration entirely, citing to Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 l&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971), and finding that the plan, having been created after the filing of the petition, 
did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. On appeal, the Petitioner contended that Matter ofKatigbak 
was inapplicable because the creation of the professional plan did not change the nature of the proposed endeavor, but 
simply provided more details about the same proposed endeavor that was initially described. We accepted this contention 
on appeal and considered the merits of the professional plan. Nevertheless, the Petitioner's further amendments at this 
point-even if they do not change the nature of the proposed endeavor-were made specifically to address the deficiencies 
in the prior plan and fall within the type of material changes contemplated by Matter ofIzummi. 22 T&N Dec. at 376. 
2 Had the Petitioner's combined motions established cause to reopen or reconsider our decision and established her 
eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong, we would then consider the Petitioner's claims as to the Director's errors and 
her eligibility under the remaining Dhanasar prongs, as those have arguments not yet been considered on appeal. But 
because the Petitioner's combined motions have not overcome the basis for our dismissal of her appeal or established her 
eligibility as to prong one, this is unnecessary. 
3