dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 22, 2023 In Re : 26967412 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a supply chain specialist, 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 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability . In addition , the Director concluded that 
the Petitioner did not establish 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo '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. 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definition: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the 
specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is 
customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign 
equivalent degree. 
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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
waiver petitions. 1 Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as 
matter of discretion 2, 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. 
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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Dept. 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 
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 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. Id. at 890. 
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. Id. at 890-91. 
II. ANALYSIS 
We will first address the threshold requirement that the Petitioner must qualify for classification under 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 3 
The Director determined that while the Petitioner submitted a diploma of a bachelor's degree from 
University I I in Venezuela, but he did not submit official academic transcripts according to 
the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). The Director also found that the 
Petitioner, in the alternative, did not establish having the requisite five years of progressive post­
baccalaureate experience in the specialty per 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l) which provides in pertinent part: 
"[ e ]vidence relating to qualifying experience or training shall be in the form of letter(s) from current 
or former employer( s) or trainer( s) and shall include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a 
specific description of the duties performed by the alien or of the training received." 
The record demonstrates that in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE the Petitioner 
submitted an academic evaluation stating that her bachelor's degree from University~~-~ ..........m 
Venezuela is foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in business administration. T e Pet1t10ner 
also submitted employment letters showing that she worked foll time at
I lin the position of "senior purchaser planner" from March 2000.__to-M-ar_c_h_2_0_0_l_an-d-th_e_n___, 
worked foll time at I I in Venezuela from March 2001 to March 2015 as a 
"procurement planning coordinator." 
3 The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not quality as an individual of exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The Petitioner does not specifically contest this portion of the Director's decision on appeal and 
therefore, this amounts to the Petitioner's abandonment or waiver of this issue. See Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 
658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (when a respondent fails to substantially appeal an issue addressed in a decision, that issue is waived 
on appeal). 
3 
Considering the evidence in the record in totality, we conclude the Petitioner has established, more 
likely than not, that she possessed the foreign degree equivalent of a bachelor's degree, and at least 
five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty at the time of filing of the 
petition and is therefore eligible for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional in 
accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). 
We now tum to the Petitioner's assertions that the Director erred in our determination that she did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The Director concluded that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit but not 
national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. We agree with the Director's 
decision. 
The Petitioner initially described her proposed endeavor as "[providing] substantial benefit for Critical 
Infrastructure within the U.S. either as a Supply Chain Consultant or specialist for private or public 
needs." The Petitioner did not directly state what her future work would entail or provide 
corroborating evidence of her specific endeavor. Instead, the Petitioner submitted various industry 
reports regarding the importance of the supply chain industry to the U.S. economy, current American 
supply chain disruptions, and labor shortage in the field. The Petitioner generally discussed the 
national importance of the industry and profession overall rather than demonstrating the national 
importance of continuing to serve her role in the supply chain industry. The Petitioner also contends 
on appeal that the Hurricane Ian's disruption of supply chain in Florida demonstrates a widespread 
need for supply chain professionals. 
Regarding national importance, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake" and look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her 
work. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The relevant question is the importance of the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor and not the importance of the industry or profession in which the 
individual will work. Id. Although we recognize the value of the supply chain professionals, merely 
working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. 
In Dhanasar, we 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. at 890. However, much of the evidence contained in the 
record shows the Petitioner's past accomplishments and recognitions from her former employers. The 
expert opinion froml Imerely reiterates the Petitioner's work experience 
and summarizes the contents of recommendation letters already on record. The Petitioner's 
knowledge, skills, and experience in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. The issue is whether 
the specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s first 
prong. Here, the record lacks specific evidence of benefits and advances her proposed endeavor will 
make in the supply chain industry. 
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. 
4 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted her professional plan stating that she will 
"develop her own venture in the U.S., as._________ _. a consulting services organization for 
the industry and small and medium business sectors." The Petitioner explained that she will offer her 
consulting services to companies "in the consolidation and management of cargo from and to any 
market in the world" and "engage in Supply Chain consultancy services as an entrepreneur for the 
benefit of public and private needs, where she is also planning train and prepare other related services 
professionals with personal secured funds." 
The Petitioner claims on appeal that her company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers as 
it intends to hire both direct and indirect employees. Yet the Petitioner's professional plan does not 
include projections for generation of revenue or staff hiring to demonstrate that the benefits to the 
regional or national economy resulting from her business would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. The Petitioner must support her assertions raised 
in her professional plan with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
The professional plan includes general analysis of the supply chain industry and its market, description 
of services to be provided, and a one-page "action plan and schedule." The action plan estimates the 
company's budget to be $15,000, then $50,000 for 2023 and $115,000 for 2024. The plan also 
anticipates "creation and establishment of the consulting company" as well as "marketing and sales 
strategies," "achievement of direct clients," and "design of didactic training material" to all occur in 
the first half of 2023. However, the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its budget 
projections and timeline for business milestones or adequately support how these projections will be 
realized. 
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally 
important because the effects of his/her work are primarily limited to his/her school or district, we find 
that the Petitioner has not established her proposed endeavor in this case will sufficiently extend 
beyond her clientele to affect the regional or national economy more broadly. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. 
In addition, the Petitioner cites to our non-precedent decision in Matter ofE-C-H, ID# 77734 (AAO 
Dec. 27, 2016). InE-C-H, we found national importance in the petitioner's proposal to assist veterans 
as an entrepreneur. We stated that "the record demonstrates the immense value in improving programs 
and assisting organizations that provide support and advocacy for U.S. veterans and wounded 
warriors" and further determined that the petitioner's self-employment makes obtaining a labor 
certification impractical. The Petitioner suggests that we should similarly find national importance in 
her proposed endeavor as she is an entrepreneur and submitted a business plan as the petitioner did in 
E-C-H. 
However, this decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does 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 proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. Specifically, the 
petitioner in the non-precedent decision was not in the same field as that of the Petitioner and had 
submitted documents that were qualitatively different than those in this case. In addition, the section 
5 
of the decision that the Petitioner quotes on appeal refers to the third prong of Dhanasar. Thus, this 
non-precedent case does not support the Petitioner's claim of national importance for her proposed 
endeavor under the Dhanasar's first prong. 
Based on the reasons above, we find the record does not establish the Petitioner's proposed work is of 
national importance. Because the Petitioner has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar's analytical 
framework, we decline to reach whether she meets the remainder of the second and third prongs under 
the Dhanasar framework. It is unnecessary to analyze any remaining independent grounds when 
another is dispositive of the appeal. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it 
unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the 
appeal); 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. Further analysis of her eligibility under the remaining prongs outlined in Dhanasar 
would serve no meaningful purpose. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6