dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13521640 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP. 10, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. 
§ 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The Director later dismissed the Petitioner's combined motions to reconsider and 
reopen stating that the motions do not meet the regulatory requirements. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
A. Motions 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must (1) 
state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy, and (2) establish that the previous decision was incorrect based 
on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the initial decision . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) . 
B. National Interest Waiver 
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). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, 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, 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 
1 In announcing this new framework. we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation. 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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, USCIS 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 
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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue on appeal is whether the Director's decision to dismiss the motions was correct. For the reasons 
discussed below, we conclude that the Director properly dismissed the Petitioner's combined motions 
to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner claimed in his combined motions that the Director's denial of the petition was "heavily 
based on the lack [of sufficient] evidence showing the national importance of my proposed endeavor." 
He asserted that "the evidence I submitted as part of my [request for evidence (RFE)] response was robust 
and clearly demonstrated the national importance of my proposed endeavor." Notably, the Director 
specifically discussed the deficiencies in the evidence initially provided in support of the Dhanasar first 
prong in his RFE, explaining that while the Petitioner initially submitted a professional plan and 
statement, the evidence primarily covered information about his past work in the field (not his future plans 
for the proposed endeavor). The Director noted that it was the Petitioner's responsibility to provide a 
detailed description of the work he proposes to perform, supported by documentary evidence to establish 
the national importance of this work, and further indicated that only submitting evidence about an industry 
or field is generally insufficient to meet the requirements of the first Dhanasar prong.4 
The Petitioner provided additional documentation in response to the Director's RFE, including statements 
from the Petitioner, opinion letters, and letters ofreference from former colleagues and employers, which 
collectively expound upon the significance of his previous work experience, reiterated general statements 
about his endeavor, and offered new, but vague commentary about his proposed work activities, such as 
"[his] long experience and outstanding achievements in the supply chain management, including import 
and export of biofuels, will be key for U.S. companies to leverage business opportunities in the [ e ]thanol 
market in Brazil." The Director denied the petition, in part, determining that the evidence of record was 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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 l&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. 
3 
inadequate to demon strate that the prospective impact of his endeavor would ris e to the level of national 
importance. 
The Director dismissed the motions, in part, because the Petitioner did not provide any additional 
evidence with the motions and did not sufficiently identify and describe the new facts to be proved in 
the reopened proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Within the combined motions, the Petitioner 
principally relied upon the industry reports and articles and the letters of support submitted before the 
denial of the petition . The Director acknowledged in the motions dismissal notice that this evidence 
established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor but reiterated his previous conclusion that 
the Petitioner did not submit evidence sufficient to show the potential prospective impact of his work 
on the broader field. The Director further informed the Petitioner that the vague statements within the 
reference letters such as his endeavor having the "potential to benefit U.S. workers and business," or 
that his work "could highly benefit U.S . companies in the field," would not suffice without evidence 
to corroborate the Petitioner's claim that his endeavor would broadly impact the field at a level 
contemplated by Dhanasar. The Director also determined with regard to the motion to reconsider 
that: (1) the Petitioner had not established that the decision to deny the petition was incorrect based 
upon the evidence in the record at the time of filing or the evidence submitted in response to the RFE; 
and, (2) the evidence provided on motion did not meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider as 
he had not demonstrated that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of the law, 
regulation, or USCIS policy . See 8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(3) . We agree . 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that he is providing "new evidence and facts" to establish the national 
importance of his endeavor, including a revised professional plan and information about a newly defined 
"logistics optimization project. .. to clarify and provide more details about my endeavor." However, 
where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given 
an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, we will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); see also Matter ofObaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec . 533,537 (BIA 1988). If the Petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, 
he should have submitted the documents in response to the Director's RFE . Id. Similarly, he could 
have submitted this evidence in support of his motion to reopen the Director's decision to deny the 
petition . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Under the circumstances, we need not and do not consider the 
sufficiency of the evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, and therefore, conclude that the 
Director correctly determined that the Petitioner's motion to reopen does not meet the requirements 
under 8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(2). 
On appeal, the Petitioner also points to previously submitted letters of support discussing his knowledge, 
skills, and work experience, maintaining that they collectively "provide deep analysis of my proposed 
endeavor and explanation of why it has national importance ." However, these letters do not sufficiently 
explain the national importance of his proposed work under Dhanasar's first prong. 5 For example, the 
Petitioner provided opinion letters from professors employed at universities in the United States . In each 
letter, the professor discusses the Petitioner's previous work achievements and puts forth conclusory 
statements about how the Petitioner's work will be of benefit to the United States should he be employed 
within the supply chain logistics occupation . 
5 In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality . Matter 
ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
4 
For instance, F-T-, professor of industrial engineering at J-, discusses the Petitioner's previous work 
responsibilities, and asserts that he "clearly meets no fewer than 3 of the accepted criteria to prove 
extraordinary ability." 6 He generally concludes, among other things, that the Petitioner's "skills set 
in the fuel industry would certainly benefit the United States to attain the goals of the Department of 
Energy .... " Likewise, V-L-, associate professor of marketing at T-U-, opines that "it is clearly in the 
national interest of the United States to grant [the Petitioner] a national interest waiver, given his 
impressive record of achievements in the field of supply chain, logistics, and HSE (health, safety & 
environment) for [the] fuels and biofuels trading market." Notably, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, 
and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is 
whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s 
first prong. Importantly, the professors do not sufficiently identify, analyze, or discuss the nature of 
the specific work the Petitioner will perform within his prospective endeavor in the United States. 7 
Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner's reliance upon the professors' letters is misplaced. 
For these reasons, we determine that the opinion letters are not persuasive towards establishing the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong, and the Director correctly determined that the 
motion to reconsider does not meet the requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). As a matter of 
discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron 
Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less 
weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. 
Id. For the sake of brevity, we will not address other deficiencies within the professors' analyses. 
The Petitioner also provides redacted copies of our non-precedent decisions, asserting that we made 
affirmative determinations therein regarding the national importance of other petitioners' endeavors 
based upon "similar evidence comparing to what I have submitted." Here, the Petitioner has not 
furnished evidence sufficient to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in 
the unpublished decisions. These decisions were not published as precedents and therefore do not 
bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3( c ). Non-precedent decisions apply 
existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case and may be distinguishable based 
on the evidence in the record of proceeding, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. 
Therefore, we determine the Petitioner's submission of these unpublished decisions lends little 
probative value to this matter. 
6 Professor F-T- appears to conflate the requirements to establish eligibility for the EB-1 classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability, with the EB-2 national interest waiver requirements (which is the immigration benefit that the 
Petitioner seeks to quality for in the instant petition). See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A); see 
also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). 
7 Similarly, the Petitioner provides reference letters from f01mer employers and work colleagues who outline his work 
accomplishments and make general statements that assen his services would be beneficial to the United States should he 
immigrate. While the letter writers hold the Petitioner in high regard, the submitted letters do not provide sufficient 
information regarding the national importance of the specific endeavor that the Petitioner will focus on should this petition 
be approved. The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS 
may evaluate the content of those letters so as to dete1mine whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. See 1756, Inc. 
v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). 
5 
In summary , while the Petitioner has established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor , he 
has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demon strate that its prospective impact rises to 
the level of national importance. 8 For example , 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. Dhana sar, 26 I&N Dec . at 893. Similarly , in this matter , the record 
does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his 
employer, its clients and those with whom he may share his knowledge to impact the U.S . economy 
or the supply chain logistics field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance . 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant 
potential to employ U.S . workers or otherwise offer s substantial positive economic effect s for our 
nation. Without sufficient documentation to support his claims regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact attributable to his future work , the record does not establish that benefits to the U.S . regional or 
national economy resulting from the Petitioner 's supply chain logistics activities would reach the level 
of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accor dingly, 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 frrst prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision , the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore , would serve no meaningful purpose. 9 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Director properly determined that the Petitioner 's combined motions do not meet the requirements 
under 8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(2), (3). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8 Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
9 It is unnecessary to analyze the remaining additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); see also Matter of L-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) . 
6