dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 18, 2023 In Re: 27855590 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a supply chain manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
qualify for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an 
individual of exceptional ability, and 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. 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 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 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). In addition, "profession" is defined as of the occupations listed in 
section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree 
or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3). 
Furthermore, "exceptional ability" means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially 
1 Profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
submit documentation that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish 
eligibility for this classification. 2 If a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits 
determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having 
a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. 
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 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 3, 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 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
In order to show that a petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied 
by "[a]n official academic record showing that the alien has a United States advanced degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Alternatively, a petitioner may present "[a]n 
official academic record showing that the alien has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer(s) showing that 
the alien has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate 
degree, but concluded that the letters he submitted from former employers initially and in response to 
the Director's request for evidence (RFE) did not show at least five years of progressive post­
baccalaureate experience in his specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). For example, the 
translated letter from R-D-, "Head of the Logistics Department of National Company I I 
JSC," stated that he has "known [the Petitioner] since 2018, from the beginning of my work in our 
company (August 2018 - February 2020)." While R-D-'s letter lists the dates of his own work at
I I it does not specify the dates of the Petitioner's employment. Likewise, the translated 
letter from A-M-A-, Department Director at.__ ________ ___,does not indicate the specific 
dates of the Petitioner's employment with the company. 
2 USCTS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-palt adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
3 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 
In his appeal brief: the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in requiring the letters from employers 
"to articulate [the Petitioner's] exact dates of employment." We disagree. The Petitioner's specific 
dates of employment are required for determining if he has accrued at least five years of progressive 
post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty. Because the Petitioner did not present letters from his 
employers showing he had at least five years of such experience, the Director correctly found that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated his eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 
Based on a de novo review, we will adopt and affirm the Director's determination that the Petitioner 
has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he qualifies as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also 
Prado-Gonzalez v. INS, 75 F.3d 631, 632 (11th Cir. 1996) (joining "every court of appeals that has 
considered this issue" holding that an appellate body may affirm the lower court's decision for the 
reasons set forth therein); Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that 
has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F3d. 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. 
Courts of Appeals in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as 
long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). Here, the Director gave individualized 
consideration of the evidence the Petitioner submitted with his initial petition and RFE response. 
B. Exceptional Ability 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner argued that he "satisfies at least three criteria" set 
forth at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). For example, the Petitioner asserted that he meets the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and (F). In denying the petition, the Director determined that 
the Petitioner fulfilled only the academic record criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). On appeal, 
the Petitioner does not contest the Director's determination that he has not demonstrated his eligibility 
as an individual of exceptional ability. See Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-2731, 2011 WL 4711885 at 
*l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed 
to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
C. National Interest Waiver 
The remaining issue 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. For the reasons discussed below, 
we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner indicated that he intends to work in the United States 
as a supply chain manager. He asserted that he plans to "help companies always stay in profit by 
conducting supply chain management due to my experience and qualifications." The Petitioner farther 
explained: "I can be useful for the development of international business and logistics, in the same way, 
my knowledge of several languages is useful for working with foreign companies and achieving the best 
contract terms in the interests of the employing company." In response to the Director's RFE, the 
Petitioner stated: 
3 
[The Petitioner] intends to work in the field of supply chain management and tower 
construction (cell tower maintenance). In 2021, [the Petitioner] founded his own company 
I I The company conducts its business as a subcontractor for equipment 
maintenance and installation. The core scope of work performed as a subcontractor: 
network construction and equipment upgrade for telecom giant T-Mobile and other 
operators. The company eliminates tower malfunctions and upgrades cellular networks 
to the required standard. 
[The Petitioner] also analyzes the market and in the future plans not only tower 
construction but also to supply high-quality and affordable equipment in order to improve 
the quality of services provided. 
The Petitioner provided documentation relating to his formation of I including its 
"Certificate of Formation" and registration in the State of Washington. He also presented the company 
business plan forl IThis business plan includes industry and market analyses, information 
about his company and its services, financial forecasts and projections, marketing strategies, 
monetization and investment predictions, and a description of company personnel. Regarding future 
staffing, the Petitioner's business plan anticipates that his company would employ 5 personnel in year 
one, 10 in year two, 19 in year three, 28 in year four, 36 in year five, and 44 in year six, but he did not 
elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees. 
In addition, while his plan offers revenue projections of$120,000 in year one, $1,483,200 in year two, 
$3,055,400 in year three, $4,720,600 in year four, $6,482,900 in year five, and $8,346,800 in year six, 
he did not adequately explain how these earnings forecasts were calculated. 
The record includes information about the occupational outlook for logisticians, the third-party 
logistics industry, the supply chain talent shortage, methods for managing supply chain shortages, and 
global supply chains in a post-pandemic world. In addition, the Petitioner provided articles discussing 
factors contributing to the supply chain talent shortage, high demand for supply chain talent, and ways 
companies are adapting to the supply chain talent shortage. The record therefore supports the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided letters of support from R-D-, A-M-A-, P-V-E-, A-B-, and R-K­
discussing his business capabilities and supply chain management experience. The Petitioner's skills, 
knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, 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 he proposes to undertake has national importance 
under Dhanasar' s first prong. The aforementioned letters do not contain sufficient information and 
explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's 
specific proposed work as a supply chain manager in the cell tower maintenance and construction 
industry offers broader implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects for our nation 
that rise to the level of national importance. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that that his undertaking stands to extend beyond his company's business operations "to 
impact his field or the supply chain industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
4 
importance ." The Director also indicated the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed work will offer 
"substantial positive economic effects." 
In his appeal brief, the Petitioner argues that "[ t ]he shipping ofmaterials, particularly hazardous materials, 
clearly meets this criterion, as it is an endeavor this spans many states and involves many different 
industries as well as the health and well-being of people all over the country." The Petitioner, however, 
has not provided evidence indicating that his proposed work is focused on shipping hazardous materials 
or that his specific endeavor in this area has broader implications in the industry or otherwise offers 
substantial positive economic effects. 
The Petitioner further asserts that "[r]ecent disruptions to the global supply chain have further 
demonstrated the national importance of shipping and logistics." While the Petitioner provided articles 
discussing the supply chain talent shortage , we are not persuaded by the claim that his proposed 
endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of professionals in his industry . Here, the 
Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the 
claimed national shortage . Further, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S . 
Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that the "maintenance and repair of cell phone towers also self­
evidently has a broad, nationwide impact." 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 Dhana sar, 
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 under stood 
to have national importance ." Id. at 890. 
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. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable supply chain management and cell tower 
maintenance and construction services, he has n ot offered sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate that the prosp ective impact of his propos ed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. In Dhana sar, 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 , we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact the telecommunication s industry , the supply 
management field, or the U.S . e conomy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
Furthermore , the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation . Specifically , he has not demonstrated that his company 's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Washington State or any other 
region of the United States . While the Petitioner claims that his company has growth potential, he has 
5 
not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his 
undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Id. at 890. In addition, although the Petitioner has asserted that his endeavor will create jobs, he has not 
offered sufficient evidence that the area where his company will operate is economically depressed, 
that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that his endeavor would offer 
the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, tax revenue , or 
business activity. 
For the aforementioned reasons , the Petitioner's propo sed 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 first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding 
his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasa r. 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 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that he satisfies the regulatory requirements for classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. 
Further, 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. 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. 
6