dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 15, 2023 In Re: 28810170 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a supply chain manager, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability. 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. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner met at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) related to 
exceptional ability but did not conduct a final merits determination as to whether the Petitioner, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, demonstrated that he has a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. The Director also determined the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor would be in the national interest of the United States. 
The Director further concluded the Petitioner did not establish that he was well positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor or that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of 
a job offer and labor certification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal as the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor would be in 
the national interest of the United States. Since this issue is dispositive, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner's arguments with respect to the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, as 
well as to whether he meets the requirements for exceptional ability classification. 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 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). 
I 
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. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
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 of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that 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; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, indicated that he was a professional with exceptional 
ability holding "recognized expertise in the supply chain sector," including specialized knowledge in 
"supply chain management consulting, logistics, project and distribution management, and supplier 
outsourcing." The Petitioner stated that he had been employed as a supply chain manager for over 
fifteen years in Brazil, most recently as a "Procurement, Logistics & Demand Planning Manager" at 
Ian oil and gas company. 
The Petitioner explained his proposed endeavor in the United States as follows: 
My overall proposed endeavor in the United States is to offer my expertise to help 
existing companies in need of management and organization of their logistics and 
supply chain operation. In this way, my main goal will be to help U.S. entities - ranging 
from any industry - improve and maintain more efficient and effective supply chains, 
in order to enhance their market competitiveness, whether nationally or internationally. 
Increased business transactions will not only provide competitive advantage to the 
companies I serve, but will also generate direct and indirect jobs for U.S. workers, as 
well as benefit the national economy. 
Further, my knowledge and experience in supply chain management will be very 
valuable to American companies pursuing the closure of new contracts, and to the 
development of new business opportunities. My work can significantly help companies 
expand their business activities across the country, and internationally, allowing them 
to become more successful and competitive in local and foreign markets. 
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 
The Petitioner farther indicated that to advance his proposed endeavor in the United States, he would 
use his "professional understanding and dexterity in order to advance the U.S. supply chain sector, 
and in turn, the logistics economy" and "design, implement, and operate distribution and international 
trade channels ensuring appropriate cost, quality, and safety levels for timely movement of goods and 
supplies." The Petitioner asserted that he would work in large U.S. companies, and through his skills 
provide cost reduction, allowing them to "reallocate their resources to new investments, thus creating 
new work opportunities, new jobs, salary compensation programs, and new business opportunities." 
The Petitioner emphasized that supply chain management is critical to the U.S. economy, and therefore 
of national importance, totaling $1.6 trillion of the U.S. gross domestic product in 2018. The Petitioner 
also stated that his knowledge of Latin America, and Brazil's infrastructure and business and supply 
chain environment, would be "essential for the successful movement/expansion of U.S. companies 
into these growing economic segments." 
In response to the Director request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner also submitted several support 
letters from colleagues to highlight the national importance of his endeavor. For instance, the 
Petitioner provided a letter from a "HSE Manager" from his former foreign employer stating that he 
had contributed greatly to the success of the organization by "secur[ing] a highly beneficial contract 
for the company that greatly improved operational efficiency and reduced costs" and noting that he 
helped a plant achieve 100% compliance with the company's global vehicle safety. The HSE manager 
farther indicated that he was "confident that [the Petitioner] will continue to make significant 
contributions to any organization he joins in the future." In tum, the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
the owner of a Florida based marble and granite business for whom he had worked from November 
2022 to January 2023 attesting to his "ability to recognize and address the underlying issues" and 
stating that he was "instrumental in implementing several projects that significantly impacted [their] 
business." The owner of the marble and granite business farther indicated that the Petitioner had 
installed Quickbooks online to allow for remote access to financial records, implemented a "critical 
vendors management system" enabling the company to better comply with regulatory requirements, 
and launched a training system to standardize pricing and allow for more agility in responding to client 
inquiries. The owner of the marble and granite business asserted that the Petitioner would be "well 
positioning to benefit any business in the United States." 
Likewise, the Petitioner provided an additional support letter from the owner of a wallcovering 
company in the United States for whom the Petitioner had delivered consulting services in August 
2022. The owner of the U.S. wallpapering company indicated that the Petitioner had implemented 
"tools and methodologies to improve office efficiency, reduce costs, increase sales, and enhance 
customer experience" leading to "increased sales by 25% within three months." The owner also stated 
that the Petitioner's "expertise and experience make him an asset to any business in the United States." 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a letter from a "Technology Lifecycle Manager" working for his 
former foreign employer stating that the Petitioner had "contributed significantly to the company's 
success" by contributing to a 30% increase in the on-time delivery of equipment at a plant and 15-
20% reduction in transportation costs through price negotiations. The Petitioner's former colleague 
asserted that he was confident that the Petitioner "will continue to excel in his future endeavors and 
make valuable contributions to the United States." 
In denying the petition, the Director stated that the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the 
proposed endeavor was of national importance. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
3 
submit specific information and evidence to corroborate the prospective impact of his proposed work 
as a supply chain manager or that it rose to the level of national importance. The Director concluded 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor would extend beyond the organizations 
he would work for and impact the industry or field more broadly. 
On appeal, the Petitioner largely reiterates his prior assertions, again stating that his proposed endeavor 
would "provided companies in the U.S. with expert advice and guidance regarding supply chain 
activities" ensuring the "direct and timely movement of goods and supplies in any industry that 
requires [his] unique set of skills." The Petitioner contends that his services will "have a profound 
impact on the U.S. business sphere, positioning the nation as a prominent hub within the global 
economy" and facilitate the growth and success of American companies. The Petitioner further states 
that his proficient management of supply chains for "large-scale projects across various industries" 
will enable companies to "thrive and expand on local and national levels." He also asserts that his 
provision of supply chain services will "provide valuable business solutions," "facilitate the growth 
and expansion of companies," "lead to improved investment patterns," generate "sustained 
productivity for U.S. businesses," and "stimulate U.S. trade relations with foreign markets." 
The first prong, 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. Here, the 
Director concluded that the Petitioner sufficiently demonstrated that his proposed endeavor had 
substantial merit but determined that he had not established its national importance. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we 
look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]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. 
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor in the United States is to offer expertise to help 
existing companies in need of management and organization of their logistics and supply chain 
operation. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. The 
Petitioner provided evidence reflecting the potential general importance of supply chain operations 
but did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the potential prospective impact of his work 
would have national or even global implications within his field. 
For instance, the Petitioner stated that the U.S. logistics industry accounted for $1.6 trillion, or 8% of 
the U.S. gross domestic product, and employed approximately 44 million individuals. In contrast, the 
Petitioner provided two support letters on appeal reflecting that he has provided professional services 
to apparent small businesses, a U.S.-based granite and marble business from November 2022 to 
January 2023, and management consulting services to a U.S. wallcovering company in August 2022. 
4 
For instance, as discussed, the owner of the marble and granite business indicated that the Petitioner 
had installed Quickbooks online to allow for remote access to financial records and implemented a 
"critical vendors management system" enabling the company to better comply with regulatory 
requirements, amongst providing other professional services. Although the services the Petitioner 
provided previously are not fully determinative of those he would provide in the future, these are likely 
reflective of the impact his services would have in the United States. However, the Petitioner has not 
disclosed the size of the U.S. companies to which he had already provided services, or explained how 
this reflects a potential national or global impact. Given this, it is difficult to discern how the 
Petitioner's provision of supply chain professional services would have a national impact on an 
industry that, according to him, accounts for approximately $1.6 trillion of the U.S. economy and 
employs over 44 million individuals. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted evidence discussing the importance of supply chain operations 
generally, but submitted little evidence to substantiate that his proposed endeavor will have a national 
or global impact. For example, the four support letters provided by the Petitioner in response to the 
RFE do not discuss how his proposed work would have a national impact, but only indicate that he is 
a competent professional that can be relied upon, stating that has "expertise and experience make him 
an asset to any business in the United States" and that he "he will continue to excel in his future 
endeavors and make valuable contributions to the United States." First, the Petitioner's expertise and 
experience is not relevant to establishing whether his proposed endeavor is of national importance, but 
whether he is well positioned to advance the endeavor. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 892-93. 
Further, as with other evidence provided on the record, the support letters do not detail with specificity 
how his work would have a national impact, other than indicating that he was a competent professional 
while employed with his former foreign employer and that he provided effective services to two clients 
in the United States. The Petitioner provided broad assertions regarding the impact of his services 
indicating that it would result in "multimillion dollar projects," "high volume," "improved investment 
patterns," "potential new market areas," "new international partnerships," and even "raise the standard 
of living." However, the Petitioner provided little explanation or supporting evidence to corroborate 
that his services would be provided to large corporations as claimed, as likely necessary to have an 
impact on national-level supply chains to achieve changes in investment patterns, national markets, 
international partnerships, or the U.S. standard of living, as asserted. The Petitioner must support its 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec.at 
376. 
Similarly on appeal, the Petitioner contends that his services will "have a profound impact on the U.S. 
business sphere, positioning the nation as a prominent hub within the global economy" and facilitate 
the growth and success of American companies. However, he submits little explanation or 
documentary support as to how his provision of services would impact the global economy or cause 
American companies to grow on a national scale. Likewise, the Petitioner further states that his 
proficient management of supply chains for "large-scale projects across various industries" will enable 
companies to "thrive and expand on local and national levels." Again, the Petitioner provided minimal 
evidence to support a conclusion that his work will be on a large scale as necessary to effectuate a 
national impact, in fact, he does not even specify in what industry he would provide his services. The 
Petitioner also asserts that his services will "stimulate U.S. trade relations with foreign markets," 
including Latin America. However, the Petitioner provides little detail or evidentiary support for how 
5 
his services will facilitate trade between U.S. and foreign companies, or generate U.S. business in 
Latin America, beyond vaguely indicating that he worked for many years in Brazil. Id. 
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. Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 
at 893. Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
extend beyond his clientele, such as those reflected in the two support letters provided from his current 
U.S. clients. The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that 
his proposed endeavor would have a broad influence commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the 
United States. The Petitioner asserted that his services would "provide valuable business solutions," 
"facilitate the growth and expansion of companies," "lead to improved investment patterns," and 
generate "sustained productivity for U.S. businesses." The Petitioner's submits extensive claims as to 
the impact his supply chain professional services would have on the economy, but again did not 
support this impact with objective documentary evidence. The Petitioner provided several industry 
articles in response to the RFE, but these discuss the general importance of supply chain operations 
and do little to substantiate that his services would have a substantial national impact on supply chain 
operations. The Petitioner does not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy that would 
result from his undertaking such that it reaches the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, the Petitioner did not offer sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the areas where he would operate are 
economically depressed, he would employ a significant population of workers in these areas, or his 
endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment 
levels, business activity, or tax revenue. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not 
meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6