dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13310507 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 28, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a supply chain manager, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business . See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner 
also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualifies 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer , and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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. 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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability . -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. [T]he Attorney General may, when the 
Attorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements 
of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "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 after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, users may, as a matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance 
the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 
The first prong, regarding substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national 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 foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she 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; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, users may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national 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 foreign 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the denial of the petition centered on the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest 
waiver, our decision will focus primarily on that issue. But, first, there is an additional threshold issue 
that bears discussion. 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Director determined that the Petitioner is a member of the professions with progressive post­
baccalaureate experience equivalent to an advanced degree. We do not agree with this determination. 
For the purposes of this classification, a profession is an occupation for which a United States 
baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Here, the Petitioner studied for his bachelor's degree in business 
administration from thel !university ofl I from August 2006 to January 2011. At 
the same time, he worked as an accounting supervisor fore=], al !subsidiary performing 
contract work fo~ I from September 2006 to February 2015. Because the 
Petitioner was able to enter the occupation before he had a baccalaureate degree, that occupation does 
not meet the regulatory definition of a profession. 
The Petitioner then worked as a supply chain inventory manager forl I from February 2015 
to March 2017, slightly more than two years. He entered the United States as an F-1 nonimmigrant 
student in July 2017, and was still in the United States when he filed the petition in June 2018. At the 
time of filing, he claimed no emjloyment experience in the United States. Therefore, regardless of 
whether his position atl _ was professional, the Petitioner did not have the required minimum 
of five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in that position. 
The Petitioner also made an alternative claim of exceptional ability in business, which the Director 
did not address. Because we will dismiss this appeal on other grounds, we reserve this issue because 
further discussion would not affect the outcome of the appeal. 3 
B. National Interest Waiver 
As outlined below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
An introductory statement submitted with the petition includes this passage: 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 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 of L-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). 
3 
Upon his immigration to the United States, [the Petitioner] intends to advance his career 
in Supply Chain Management, where he will direct and coordinate production, 
purchasing, warehousing, distribution, and financial forecasting services to limit costs 
and improve accuracy, customer service, and safety. He will examine existing 
procedures and implement procedures to streamline act1v1t1es to 
meet product distribution needs, while also directing the movement, storage, and 
processing of inventory. 
We note that the above description is taken, almost verbatim, from the general job description for 
supply chain managers on O*NET, an employment information database sponsored by the U.S. 
Department of Labor. 4 As such, the above passage describes the general duties of a supply chain 
manager, but it provides no specific details about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Because no 
blanket waiver exists for supply chain managers, the Petitioner cannot establish eligibility for the 
national interest waiver based solely or primarily on his intention to seek employment as a supply 
chain manager. A separate "statement and professional plan" likewise centers largely around the 
general duties of a supply chain manager, with the added assertion that "U.S. companies doing 
business or planning on doing business in Brazil" would benefit from his "contacts and experience in 
Brazil" and "in-depth knowledge of the Brazilian business environment." 
The Petitioner cites general information about supply chain management and asserts that "by operating 
an effective and efficient supply chain, he can boost customer service, reduce operating costs, and 
improve quality oflife. All of these things can result in increased profits, allowing a company to grow, 
which will require hiring more employees." These are general assertions about the occupation. As 
such, they explain why a given company would hire a supply chain manager, but they do not show 
that the work of any one particular supply chain manager has national importance. 
Assertions about trade with Brazil are less general, but even then, the Petitioner does not explain how 
his knowledge of the Brazilian market would lend national importance to his proposed endeavor. 
General statistics about Brazilian trade do not suffice in this regard, because this information does not 
establish the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Skills and experience do not take on 
national importance merely because they are potentially useful to prospective employers. Also, the 
Petitioner proposes no specific endeavor relating to those plans. Rather, he asserts that an employer 
seeking to do business in Brazil could benefit from his knowledge of that country. 
The Petitioner states: 
My specific endeavor will potentially impact the U.S. in the following ways: 
• U.S. job creation through managing and directing the supply chain industry 
• Opportunity to improve quality of life 
• Improve customer satisfaction 
• Decrease purchasing costs 
• Create higher profit margins 
4 See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/l l-3071.04 (last visited June 28, 2021). 
4 
• Train inexperienced employees in the supply chain industry 
• Environmental Benefits 
o Ability to increase the opportunity to decrease pollution 
o Ability to increase the opportunity to decrease energy use 
• Economic Benefits 
o Decrease production cost 
o Decrease total supply chain cost 
o Increase cash flow 
o Job creation 
The Petitioner does not elaborate on these claims. Some of these claimed benefits are employer­
specific (such as impact on costs and profit margins); others lack sufficient explanation. For example, 
with regard to decreasing pollution, the Petitioner submits background evidence showing how 
increased supply chain efficiency can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but does not detail how his 
proposed endeavor will produce such effects at nationally significant levels. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), asking for more information and evidence to 
establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. In response, the Petitioner submits a 
revised "Professional Plan & Statement." Parts of this statement repeat the earlier version, but he adds 
that he has founded a company,! I to "deliver smart supply chain consultations and 
logistics solutions to ... clients," and that he will continue to operate this company while also seeking 
"employment as a Supply Chain Manager." He states: 
[M]y overall proposed endeavor in the United States is to offer my expertise to help 
any company in the U.S. in need of management and organization of their logistics and 
supply chain operations. As an expert in this field, my work will benefit the companies 
I work for in the United States . . . . Increased businesses transactions will not only 
provide a competitive advantage to the companies I work for, but will also generate 
direct and indirect jobs [for] U.S. workers, and tax revenues for local economies, and 
the overall U.S. economy as a whole. 
Monthly receipts show that received monthly payments froml I in 2019. The L_ ____ ....__ ___ --, 
receipts do not describe the services tha provided in return for those payments. 
The record shows that the Petitioner did not form his new company until December 2018, six months 
after he filed the petition. His initial description of the proposed endeavor did not include any plans 
to form such a company, and the Petitioner does not explain how he would be able to devote sufficient 
attention both to running his own company and to a supply chain manager position with another 
employer. The Petitioner must meet eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). The Petitioner's establishment of a new company after the filing date cannot 
retroactively establish eligibility. 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 USCIS requirements. 
See Matter oflzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998); see also Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971), which requires that beneficiaries seeking employment-based immigrant 
classification must possess the necessary qualifications as of the filing date of the visa petition. 
5 
The Petitioner does not explain how his revised plan has national importance, rather than primarily 
benefiting his own employer or clients. Instead, he repeats prior assertions about the overall 
importance of supply chain management. This information is not persuasive because the collective 
impact of logistics and supply chain management does not impute national importance to the activities 
of any one particular supply chain manager. 
The Petitioner asserts that "[h ]is effective management of supply chain functions . . . will allow 
companies to grow, and expand, both locally and nationally," and "will also contribute to U.S. gross 
domestic product (GDP), and to an increase in employment opportunities for U.S. workers," and "has 
ripple effects that significantly benefit other industries." The Petitioner does not elaborate on these 
points or provide evidence to support them. Vague and unsupported speculation of this kind does not 
suffice to establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance. 
The Petitioner contends that he is responsible for innovations in supply chain management, but he 
provides few details and does not show how his work has had a broader impact (for example, 
widespread adoption of his methods by others). Discussion of his work with I I does not 
establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the United States, because 
the Petitioner has not established that his work in the United States will involve a comparable level of 
responsibility with an employer of comparable size and economic significance. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not show how the benefit from his work would "extend 
beyond his employer to impact the field more broadly." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: 
[T]he Services [sic] has[]clearly misunderstood [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor, 
assuming he is working as an Accountant, when he actually performs a completely 
distinct role as a Supply Chain Manager and Consultant. Denial Decision Letter, at 5. 
It is also possible that the Services reviewed a record completely distinct from that of 
[the Petitioner] to reach their decision. 
The above passage mischaracterizes the relevant passage from the Director's decision. In that passage, 
the Director did not state that the Petitioner "is working as an Accountant." Rather the Director stated: 
"The petitioner has stated that he began his professional career in 2006 with as an 
Accountant and promoted later on to Financial Manager and later between 2015 and 201 7 with 
I las a Supply Chain and Logistics Manager." The first half of this passage is a~l_m_o_s_t ~a 
direct quote from the Petitioner's signed "Professional Plan & Statement" submitted in response to the 
RFE: "My professional career began in September 2006, when I became employed as an Accountant 
at thd I Later, in 2011, I was promoted to the role of Financial Manager." 5 
5 On the same page as the "accountant" reference, the Director made several references to facts and exhibits specific to 
the correct record of proceeding, including the names of several individuals who provided letters on the Petitioner's behalf. 
Elsewhere in the denial notice, the Director quoted at length from materials in the record. The decision notice as a whole 
conclusively proves that the Director relied on the correct record of proceeding. 
6 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that, given his background and experience, "there is no doubt that 
[his] proposed endeavor ... is not only meritorious, but nationally important, when consider[ing] how 
much benefit he can generate to the economy and society at large." The Petitioner does not establish 
that his intended future work will have effects that he has not documented in his career so far. 
Under the heading "Evidence that the Petitioner's Proposed Endeavor has National Importance," the 
Petitioner submits "[ a ]rticles demonstrating the urgent need of professionals in the supply chain 
management field." Rising demand for qualified workers in the Petitioner's field does not indicate 
that the work of any one supply chain manager is of national importance. 
The Petitioner shows on appeal that he founded a second company, 
I I about two weeks after the Director denied the petition in Ap~r-i-1 -2-0-20 ___ A_c_li_e_n_t -in_B_r-az_i_l _w_h_o~ 
sells "alcohol in gel" (apparently hand sanitizer) asserts his "firm intention of retaining" I I 
I Ito conduct market research, store, sell, and transport his unnamed company's product. This 
new development amounts to another deviation from the proposed endeavor as originally described at 
the time of filing. Even then, the Petitioner does not establish the national importance of this potential 
contract or address how his operation of this second company affects his first company,! I 
and his originally stated plan to work for a U.S. employer. The lack of detail in the initial filing, 
followed by significant new developments, raises questions as to whether the Petitioner had fully 
formed his proposed endeavor at the time of filing. A general intention to work in the field of supply 
chain management does not suffice as a specific proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner quotes Dhanasar: "Even ventures and undertakings that have as their focus one 
geographic area of the United States may properly be considered to have national importance." Id. at 
889. The same paragraph of the precedent decision included an important clarification: "An 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." The Petitioner asserts on appeal that "the supply chain economy in the United States ... 
accounts for 37% of all jobs, and employs 44 million people." Materials in the record estimate the 
size of the logistics and supply chain markets at several trillion dollars per year. The Petitioner does 
not establish that his work has had, and will have, substantial positive economic effects in the context 
of these figures. By the time of the appeal, two years after the filing of the petition, the Petitioner 
established that one of his new U.S. companies had one client, and the other had one potential client, 
neither of whom had conducted, or proposed to conduct, a volume of business that is significant in the 
context of the figures provided in the record. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. 
The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not meet the other Dhanasar prongs, regarding 
whether he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and whether, on balance, the benefit 
from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor outweighs the national interest inherent in the job offer 
requirement. Because our first prong finding is sufficient by itself to determine the outcome of this 
proceeding, we reserve the remaining issues. Detailed discussion of those issues cannot change the 
outcome of this appeal. 
7 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not met the required first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8