dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 25, 2024 In Re: 30644085 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an international business manager and consultant in the supply chain industry, seeks 
second preference immigrant classification (EB-2) as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the 
job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 immigrant 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 did not make a finding on whether the Petitioner qualified for 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
waiver pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The 
Petitioner claimed eligibility for both types ofEB-2 classification, as a member of the professions 
with an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director's decision focuses 
entirely on the issue of the national interest waiver and includes no determination on whether the 
Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification. Because we nevertheless conclude that the Petitioner has 
not established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would 
be in the national interest, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies second­
preference eligibility criteria. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "courts 
and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the 
results they reach"); 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). 
The Petitioner initially stated that his proposed endeavor is to "serve in development, consulting, and 
training pertaining to international Business Administration/management applied to international trade 
and investment focused on supply chain management and logistics." However, the Petitioner's initial 
filing did not provide additional details regarding his future endeavor and largely discussed the 
importance of the supply chain management and international trade in general. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner introduced a business plan for 
his company, __________ stating that the company's mission is to "facilitate the 
expansion and success of companies in international markets through high-quality strategic and 
operational consulting services" and to provide "innovative and customized solutions that drive 
growth, efficiency and sustainable competitiveness." The Petitioner provided additional articles on 
global supply chain challenges, trends and outlook on supply chain management, and the White 
House's 2022 report on securing critical supply chains. 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner demonstrated substantial merit of his endeavor 
based on various industry reports and articles on the importance of supply chain management and 
logistics industry; however, the Petitioner did not establish national importance of his endeavor, as 
contemplated by Dhanasar. We agree with the Director's statement that the Petitioner "has not offered 
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 is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance." 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact and focus on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We stated that "[a]n undertaking may have national 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, 
such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that "the evidence unequivocally supports the conclusion that [the 
Petitioner] satisfies the Dhanasar three prong test by a preponderance of evidence" and "the Director 
erred in concluding otherwise." Specifically, the Petitioner contends that the Director "did not analyze 
the Petitioner's evidence" such as the expert opinion letter, the business plan, and industry related 
articles and reports, and did not provide "in-depth consideration of [the] evidence" as it used "generic 
language in a templated request for evidence (RFE) and final decision." 
While the Director did not specifically address each piece of evidence submitted, it is a well­
established principle that "a presumption ofregularity attaches to the actions of Government agencies" 
absent clear evidence to the contrary. See US. Postal Serv. v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1, 10 (2001) (citing 
United States v. Chem. Found., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926)). Here, the Director overall describes the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor and cites to specific information and contents from the record before 
reaching its conclusion. If the Director provided a reasoned consideration to the petition and has made 
adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor 
is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence presented. See Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 
976 (1st Cir.1992); aff'd Morales v. INS, 208 F.3d 323, 328 (1st Cir. 2000); see also Pakasi v. Holder, 
577 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2009); Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009). 
Therefore, we find that the Director considered the evidence presented but determined that they are 
not probative in supporting the endeavor's national importance. 
The Petitioner claims that the expert opinion letter "represents a critical endorsement of the Petitioner's 
work by an expert in the field" and affirms "the significance of the endeavor and its direct relevance 
to the national interest." However, this expert letter is written by an evaluator from INNOV A 
Educational Services, a private credential evaluation firm that analyzes foreign academic degree 
equivalence "due to [their] extensive knowledge of the world's educational systems." The evaluator 
does not provide his professional or academic credentials to show that he is a recognized expert in the 
field or industry of the Petitioner's endeavor, such as business administration, supply chain 
management, international trade, or logistics industry. Instead, the evaluator generally describes the 
three prongs of Dhanasar and summarizes the information already provided by the Petitioner's 
resume, business plan, and recommendation letters, such as his educational and employment 
background, the mission and vision of his company, and statistics and outlook on relevant occupations, 
before concluding that the Petitioner is eligible for the national interest waiver. The evaluator does 
not provide any other persuasive details regarding specific impact of the Petitioner's endeavor or his 
methodology in supply chain management or international trade. 
3 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. 
Matter ofCaron 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. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, the advisory opinion is of little probative value as the 
evaluator does not provide his credentials to demonstrate his expertise in the field of the Petitioner's 
endeavor or meaningfully address the details of the endeavor and why it would have national 
importance. 
The Petitioner further claims that the business plan on record "serves as a comprehensive outline 
demonstrating the Petitioner's well-structured strategy and the viability of the proposed endeavor" as 
well as "the likelihood of business success" and "the potential for job creation within the United 
States." Although the Petitioner's business plan outlines the company's mission, organizational 
structure, marketing strategies, pricing, and weekly action plans, it does not sufficiently demonstrate 
the company's financial or staffing projections for us to determine how the Petitioner's business will 
have "substantial positive economic effects" to a region or the nation as a whole. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 890. The Petitioner also has not offered other corroborating evidence of the company's 
economic impact aside from claims made in the business plan or his statements. 2 The Petitioner must 
support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner also contends that articles and publications discussing the proposed endeavor provide 
"external perspective and valuable insights into the endeavor's importance within the broader 
community, industry, or field" and the Director did not sufficiently explain "why he considers this 
evidence insufficient." We acknowledged that the Petitioner's endeavor assisting businesses in 
efficient transport of goods has substantial merit; but the relevant question for determining the 
endeavor's national importance 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." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The articles and publications on record do not address 
the Petitioner's specific endeavor and its impact; they merely demonstrate that the Petitioner will work 
in an important field and that is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. 
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally 
important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the Petitioner has not 
established his proposed endeavor in this case will sufficiently extend beyond his company's clients 
and employees to affect the region or nation more broadly. Id. at 893. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner did not establish national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and therefore, he has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal are 
2 The Petitioner also claims that the Director unduly focused on the "intricate details of the Petitioner's business operations 
which may not be readily ascertainable during the initial stages of the endeavor." However, the Director's scrutiny of the 
business plan was for the purpose of finding corroborating evidence to evaluate whether the business will have any 
significant economic effects, as contemplated in Dhanasar . 
4 
dispositive of the appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding 
his eligibility under the second and third prongs of Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 
25 (1976) (stating that "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 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 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