dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 14, 2024 In Re: 30212440 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a supply chain specialist, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability. 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 the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate his eligibility for a national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3. 
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 
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 
A. EB-2 Classification 
In order to qualify for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner must first show that he qualifies for the 
EB-2 classification under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, either as an advanced degree professional 
or an individual of exceptional ability. In denying the petition, the Director did not determine whether 
the Petitioner qualified for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional or as an 
individual of exceptional ability. However, the Director did conclude, without analysis, that the 
Petitioner's foreign bachelor's degree qualified him as an advanced degree professional in the request 
for evidence (RFE) notice. 
As discussed below, the Petitioner has not presented adequate reasons or evidence on appeal to 
overcome the Director's determination that he is ineligible for a national interest waiver, as a matter 
of discretion. Therefore, we need not remand the matter to the Director to clarify the basis for the 
determination in the RFE that the Petitioner is eligible for the EB-2 classification as an advanced 
degree professional. Id. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the issue of his EB-2 eligibility. 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). 
B. National Interest Waiver 
The 
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, stated in the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for an Alien 
Worker, that his job title was "supply chain specialist." The Petitioner submitted several articles and 
reports related to supply chain professionals, for instance, discussing shortages of supply chain 
professionals and the impact of COVID-19 on the supply chain industry. The Petitioner also provided 
letters from colleagues discussing his skills and experience. For example, one letter from an operations 
director at a logistics company in Brazil indicated that the Petitioner was "highly recommended" and 
that he had "no doubt that [the Petitioner] will also be very successful in the United States of America." 
The Petitioner did not specifically describe his proposed endeavor in the United States or why it would 
be of national importance. 
1 See Flores v. Garland. 72 F.4th 85. 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
The Director later issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating the Petitioner had demonstrated that his 
work as a supply chain specialist in the United States had substantial merit and that it "met the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework" related to national importance. As such, in response, the Petitioner 
did not submit additional assertions or documentation to demonstrate the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. The Petitioner did submit three reference letters from colleagues, an email from 
a U.S. company based in Florida regarding a potential supply chain planning position, and information 
on supply chain projects he worked on abroad. 
The Director later denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director emphasized that the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
how his proposed endeavor would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers and emphasized 
the lack of evidence to support that his proposed work would generate interest from customers or 
investors and contribute to the national economy. The Director determined the Petitioner did not 
establish that his proposed work in the United States would have an impact on the field more broadly 
or have a substantial economic impact. The Director further stated that the Petitioner did not 
sufficiently describe his proposed endeavor and its potential prospective national impact. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director recognized the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor in the RFE and did not request additional evidence as to the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. The Petitioner asserts "there is no requirement for more evidence related to the national 
importance [ as he] did not submit more evidence related to the national importance as a response to 
the RFE. Thus, the Petitioner is submitting the same arguments [ on appeal] as presented in the initial 
package for your reference and convenience ... " Notably, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8) 
permits the Director to deny a petition for failure to establish eligibility without having to request 
evidence regarding the grounds for ineligibility identified by the Director in the denial. Even though 
the Director offered conflicting national interest determinations between the RFE and denial notices, 
it is not clear what remedy would be appropriate beyond this appeal process. The Petitioner has been 
afforded the opportunity to supplement the record on appeal as to the issue of national importance, 
therefore it would serve no useful purpose to remand this matter to simply afford the Petitioner another 
opportunity to supplement the record with new evidence. As such, we will analyze, de novo, whether 
the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
In determining national importance, 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." Matter ofDhanasar, 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. 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 emphasizes on appeal his expertise and experience abroad as a supply chain 
professional. The Petitioner points to his "in-depth technical knowledge and distinguished skills" in 
business logistics, supply chain management, project management, strategic leadership, transport 
3 
logistics, industrial logistics, reverse logistics, strategic planning, systems, projects, logistics systems, 
optimization techniques, and team development." The Petitioner states that supply chain processes 
are important to profitability and that there is a labor shortage of supply chain professionals in the 
United States. The Petitioner indicates that his experience and expertise working as a supply chain 
analyst and logistics manager abroad is relevant to addressing this labor shortage. The Petitioner 
asserts that he can help U.S. companies find ways to make their supply chain operations work better, 
emphasizing that he worked abroad on improving these processes and reducing logistics costs. The 
Petitioner contends that he gained "indispensable expertise by working for a multi-national renowned 
corporation -I I-for several years." The Petitioner states that he will "execute complex 
processes" and "provide indispensable contributions to the U.S." In sum, the Petitioner asserts that 
the record includes sufficient corroborating evidence to establish that his work rises to the level of 
national importance. However, 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." 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 Petitioner also discusses a shortage of supply chain professionals in the United States and the 
impact these professionals could have on the profitability of U.S. companies. However, even if the 
Petitioner had established an asserted shortage of supply chain professionals, a shortage of workers in 
a petitioner's field does not demonstrate the prospective national impact of a proposed endeavor. For 
instance, the Petitioner does not sufficiently describe how filling one supply chain position in the 
United States would have a prospective national impact on this claimed shortage of workers. Again, 
in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work, but the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake. 
As noted by the Director, the Petitioner did not, and still does not on appeal, sufficiently articulate a 
specific proposed endeavor in the United States, beyond a vague intention to work generally in the 
supply chain industry. For instance, the Petitioner submitted an email from June 2023 2 indicating that 
he had applied for a supply chain planning position in Florida with I I The email indicated 
that the employer wished to conduct a follow up interview, but he otherwise submitted little indication 
as to what his specific proposed endeavor would be in the United States. The Petitioner does not 
sufficiently discuss and document what his proposed endeavor would involve, nor its national impact, 
other than suggesting that he may be employed by I lin the United States. 
For instance, the Petitioner contends that he will "execute complex processes" and "provide 
indispensable contributions to the U.S," but he does not discuss these asserted processes or 
contributions in detail. The Petitioner lists his expertise in several topics including business logistics, 
supply chain management, project management, strategic leadership, transport logistics, industrial 
logistics, among others, but does not articulate how he would impact these varying fields on a national 
level. The Petitioner asserts that he can help U.S. companies find ways to make their supply chain 
operations work better, noting that he worked abroad on improving these processes and reducing 
logistics costs. However, the Petitioner does not describe how he would make U.S. companies 
improve their supply chain operations on a national level. There was little indication from the 
2 The petition was filed on August 1, 2021. 
4 
submitted evidence that the Petitioner would be doing national-level work related to the supply chain 
operations of various companies. The Petitioner must resolve discrepancies and ambiguities in the 
record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). In sum, the Petitioner has provided little supporting evidence to 
substantiate that his proposed work as supply chain specialist in the United States would have a 
potential prospective impact on a national level. 
The Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of his proposed endeavor would rise to the level o f national importance. 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 893. As noted by the Director, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential employer and its clientele. As such, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would have a broad influence commensurate with 
national importance. 
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, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments with respect to the second and third prong outlined in 
Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 516. 
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. 
5