remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 26247234 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 27, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a logistics operations manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as both a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and an 
individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 
8 U.S.C. § ll 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he is an individual of exceptional ability and eligible for, or otherwise merits, 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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. 
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 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. 1 If 
a petitioner satisfies the initial criteria, 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. 
1 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis .gov/policy-manual/volume-6-
part-f-chapter- 5. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates EB-2 eligibility, 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 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 their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
As noted above, the Petitioner claims to meet the underlying classification as both an individual of 
exceptional ability and as an advanced degree professional. Here, the Director did not address the 
Petitioner's eligibility as an advanced degree professional. 3 While the Petitioner has established that 
he holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, the Director should determine whether he 
has submitted sufficient evidence that he has the required five years of progressive experience in the 
specialty and, thus, qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification. 
Regarding the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver, he must identify "the specific 
endeavor that [he] proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In 
determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the specific 
proposed endeavor to determine whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national importance and 
(2) he is well positioned to advance it. 
According to the Petitioner's initial filing on July 14, 2021, he "seeks employment in the field of 
supply chain management." The Director explained in the notice of intent to deny (NOID) that the 
Petitioner did not sufficiently describe his proposed endeavor. As part of the evidence provided in 
response, the Petitioner submitted a personal statement indicating he would "provid[ e] consulting 
services ... in the area of operations [ and] supply chain management in the dairy and agricultural 
industries," a "draft business plan" for a limited liability company which will "offer[] solutions for 
[b ]usiness value chains, logistics, supply chain, [ and] procurement," an employment verification letter 
which states that he has held the position of operations manager since January 2021 for a company in 
Venezuela, and two job offer letters. 
The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 12); Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). Further, the purpose of an NOID is to elicit information that clarifies 
whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. 
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l),(8), and (12). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in 
an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). If significant, material changes are made to the initial request 
2 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). 
3 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). 
2 
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. 
While we agree with the ultimate conclusion that the Petitioner has not established that he qualifies 
for a national interest waiver, the Director should determine whether the evidence submitted in 
response to the NOID 1) clarified or provided more specificity to the proposed endeavor as initially 
described, or 2) 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. We note, for example, that the Petitioner 
made no mention of starting his own consulting company in the original petition and, in fact, 
specifically stated that he would be "seek[ing] employment." 
The Director should also consider whether the Petitioner provided consistent information to determine 
what the proposed endeavor actually is in order to accurately analyze it under the first and second 
prongs of the Dhanasar analysis. Although the Petitioner provided a draft business plan in response 
to the NOTD, he also submitted a letter dated July 2022 confirming his employment as an operations 
manager since January 2021 for a company in Venezuela and two job offer letters indicating a start 
date "upon approval of immigrant visa." 
If the Director concludes that the Petitioner did not change his proposed endeavor and has sufficiently 
and consistently described it, then he should conduct a thorough analysis to determine whether the 
Petitioner meets any of the prongs under Dhanasar. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3