dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19634261 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 2, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a supply chain manager, 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. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that she 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 
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). 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, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's 
proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the noncitizen 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 
noncitizen 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 noncitizen. 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 
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 noncitizen's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen 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 noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen'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. 2 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 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 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record indicates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined 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 her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
Specifically, we conclude that the Petitioner has submitted insufficient and inconsistent evidence 
regarding the substantive nature of her proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner indicated in her initial filing that she intends "to continue using [her] expertise and 
knowledge in the field of freight forwarding by working as a Supply Chain Manager in the United States." 
She stated in her professional plan and statement that she plans to "enter American companies with the 
ability to provide expert advice and guidance regarding supply chains and optimize the flow of materials, 
information, and finances as products move from supplier to customer." She further stated that by using 
her skills and knowledge in logistics, import-export, and supply chain management "she will help 
companies maximize their value and reduce total costs across the entire trading process, while helping 
increase employment in the United States." Additionally, the Petitioner asserted that as a result of her 
contacts and experience in Brazil, she "can also enter U.S. companies with the ability to provide expert 
advice and guidance regarding cross-border contracts with Brazil and Latin America," noting that her 
expertise in this field would allow her to assist U.S. companies doing business or planning to do business 
in Brazil. 
The Petitioner further described the potential impacts of her proposed endeavor as follows: 
My specific endeavor will potentially impact the U.S. in the following ways: 
• U.S. job creation through managing and directing supply and transportation logistics; 
• Improve customer satisfaction; 
• Decrease purchasing costs; 
• Create higher profit margins; and, 
• Train inexperienced employees in the supply and transportation logistics industry. 
Environmental Benefits 
• Increase efficiency to decrease pollution; and 
• Increase efficiency to save on energy usage. 
Economic Benefits 
• Decrease production costs; 
• Decrease total supply chain costs; 
• Generate tax revenue; 
• Increase cash flow; and, 
• Job creation. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking the Petitioner to provide further information 
and evidence regarding her proposed endeavor and its national importance. In response, the Petitioner 
provided a revised professional plan and statement, and stated that she "will provide quality 
3 
professional services and logistics consulting through [her] company, for U.S. 
companies regardless of the size and backgrounds, contributing to acceptable import and export 
practices, and strengthening commercial relations with key market segments." Although parts of her 
revised statement repeat her earlier assertions, she indicated that her newly-formed company currently 
imports and exclusively distributes I I products, which she stated are vegan and 
organic cosmetic products "that have direct impact on the well being of the health of U.S. individuals." 
The Petitioner claimed that her company generates indirect jobs for hairdressers by supplying them 
with FDA-approved organic products, and that her ultimate goal is to manufacture I I I products in the United States. In this new statement, she omitted mention of seeking direct 
employment with U.S. companies as a supply chain manager and instead stated that she will be an 
entrepreneur and CEO/owner her own company. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner 
appeared "to be engaging in a proposed endeavor completely different from the proposed endeavor 
listed in the statement submitted with the Form I-140," but nevertheless evaluated the new evidence 
submitted in response to the RFE and concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that her undertaking 
"has national or even global implications within a particular field or industry." The Director also indicated 
that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her proposed work stands to have a broader effect on the 
regional or national economy. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she has demonstrated the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor under the preponderance of evidence standard and that the Director's decision was in error 
because it imposed a "stricter standard of proof." With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, 
a petitioner must establish that she meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other 
words, a petitioner must show that what she claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To 
determine whether a petitioner has met her burden under the preponderance standard, we consider not 
only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the 
evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, the Director 
analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed her evidence to evaluate whether she had 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she meets the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
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 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. 
Here, the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear. The information she provided in the 
response to the Director's RFE did not clarify or provide more specificity to her initially described 
4 
proposed endeavor of working as a supply chain manager, but rather it changed the focus of her work 
and the nature of her proposed endeavor altogether. As noted by the Director, the Petitioner's initial 
filing contained little to no information on her proposed endeavor but simply included a statement that 
her occupation is as a supply chain manager and that she intended to offer her services to U.S. 
companies. Although her general assertions about the occupation explain why a given company would 
hire a supply chain manager, they do not show that the work of any one particular supply chain manager 
has national importance. 
Moreover, her initial assertions about trade with Brazil did not explain how her knowledge of the 
Brazilian market would lend national importance to her proposed endeavor. General statistics about 
Brazilian trade do not suffice in this regard, because this information does not establish the impact of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Skills and experience do not take on national importance merely because 
they are potentially useful to prospective employers. Also, the Petitioner proposed no specific endeavor 
relating to those plans. Rather, she asserted that an employer seeking to do business in Brazil could 
benefit from her knowledge of that country. Finally, while she initially listed the impacts of her proposed 
endeavor and asserted that they would have substantial environmental and economic impacts, the 
Petitioner did not elaborate on these claims. Some of these claimed benefits are employer-specific (such 
as impact on costs and profit margins); others lack sufficient explanation. 
In response to the RFE, she provided a revised professional plan indicating that she founded a business 
that imports and exclusively distributes! I products, and emphasized that her 
ultimate goal is to manufacture _______ _,products in.the United States. The record shows 
that the Petitioner did not form her new company until July 2019, six months after she filed the petition. 
Her initial description of the proposed endeavor did not include any plans to form such a company, 
and the Petitioner does not explain how she would be able to devote sufficient attention both to running 
her own company and to a supply chain manager position with one or multiple U.S. companies, as 
originally asserted. The Petitioner must meet eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The Petitioner's establishment of a new company after the filing date cannot 
retroactively establish eligibility, and a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has 
already been filed in an effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. See Matter of Izwnmi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998); see also Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971), which requires that beneficiaries seeking 
employment-based immigrant classification must possess the necessary qualifications as of the filing 
date of the visa petition. 
The Petitioner's focus on cosmetic import and manufacturing presented in the RFE substantively 
differs from her initial plan to provide services to U.S. employers as a supply chain manager. Even if 
we were to accept her general assertions that she also intends to provide supply chain management 
services in an entrepreneurial capacity through her new company, which we do not, the record does 
not support such an assertion. For example, the business plan for her new company provides 
information on market segmentation for various cosmetic products including fragrances, skincare, 
healthcare, nail products, and deodorants, and includes information on external competitors such as 
Sephora, Ulta, and Bath & Body Works, LLC. The company goals include sales forecasts for various 
beauty products such as keratin and beauty maintenance kits, and the marketing strategy is specific to 
site and social media, seminars, and traditional media focused on gaining new customers for I I I I There is no mention of supply chain management or logistics consulting services, or the 
5 
manner in which such services would be provided . We therefore conclude the RFE response presented 
a new set of facts regarding the proposed endeavor, which is material to eligibility for a national 
interest waiver. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978); see also 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Again, the Petitioner's establishment of a new company and her 
revised plan to focus her endeavor on cosmetic import and manufacturing presented after the filing 
date cannot retroactively establish eligibility. We reiterate that a petitioner may not make material 
changes to a petition that has already been filed to make an apparently deficient petition conform to 
USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175; see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. 
Although the Petitioner maintains on appeal that she "will focus the impact of her business by 
providing consultation and services in supply chain and logistics management with a focus on 
improving processes, enabling cost reductions, and improving supply chain operations through quality 
freight and consultancy services," the record does not support this assertion for the reasons noted 
above. Moreover, she does not sufficiently explain how her revised plan has national importance, 
rather than primarily benefiting her own company and its clients. Specifically, she asserted in her 
revised professional statement that her ultimate goal "is to manufacture I products 
in the US using a local plant inl I increasing the production line, generating employability, and 
more." The Petitioner does not address this alternate endeavor on appeal and instead repeats prior 
assertions about the overall importance of supply chain management. These assertions are not 
persuasive because the collective impact of logistics and supply chain management does not impute 
national importance to the activities of any one particular supply chain manager. Moreover, and most 
importantly, the Petitioner does not address the contradictory claim that her ultimate goal is to 
manufacture cosmetic products rather than provide supply chain management consulting services. 
Although she indicates that her company will also provide integrated logistics solutions, the record 
does not support this assertion. 
Accordingly, the specific nature of her proposed endeavor remains unclear. In Dhanasar, we held that 
a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We conclude that her initial filing and the RFE response contained 
differing jobs 3 and insufficiently detailed statements concerning her proposed future work. 
Furthermore, her appeal contains little attempt to address the Director's concern that she changed her 
proposed endeavor in response to the RFE, as well as the fact that her new position as an entrepreneur 
and company owner began after the initial filing of the petition. If significant, material changes are 
made to the initial request for approval, a petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval 
of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. 
Therefore, since we are unable to specifically identify the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, we are 
likewise unable to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national 
importance requirement. Generally, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective 
impact" of a petitioner's work. Here, while the Petitioner's initial statements reflect her intention to 
provide supply chain management and consulting services for U.S. businesses, and revised statements 
indicate that she intends to import and manufacture vegan and organic cosmetic products for the 
3 On page 9 of the business plan, the Petitioner is identified as "an IT Security and Network expert," which contradicts her 
continued assertions that she is a supply chain manager . 
6 
benefit of U.S. consumers, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that 
the prospective impact of either endeav or rises to the level of 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 her field more broadly . Id. at 893. Here, we conclude the 
record does not show that either of the Petitioner's proposed endeavors stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond her company and its future clientele , or companies to whom she may lend her expertise , t o 
impact the fields of logistics and supply chain management or the U.S. economy more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance . 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that either endeavor she proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. As previously noted, she provided no specific information or data relevant to economic 
effects potentially resulting from supply chain management consulting services offered to U.S. 
companies. Moreover, she has not shown that her company's future staffing levels and business 
activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States.4 The business 
plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately 
explain how these projections will be realized. While the sales forecast for I indicates 
that the Petitioner's company has growth potential, it does not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional 
or national economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar . Id. at 890. In addition, although the Petitioner asserts 
that her company will hire U.S. employees and that her endeavor will "increase employment" and provide 
jobs for various individuals in the hairdressing field, she has not offered sufficient evidence that the area 
where her company operates is economically depressed , that she would employ a significant 
population of workers in that area, or that her endeavor would offer the region or its population a 
substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding her proposed endeavor , we 
cannot conclude that she meets the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. The Petitioner, 
therefore, has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of her eligibility 
under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion . 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 The business plan asserts that the company will generate revenues of approximately $300,000 in 2021, which will steadily 
climb each year to reach revenues of over $1.7 million in 2025, and as a result will have created at least 12 jobs in that 
timeframe . 
7