dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cargo And Freight

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 13, 2024 In Re: 30413661 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a cargo and freight agent and entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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. § l 153(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 that the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver because he did not demonstrate the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. We dismissed an appeal of that decision and a subsequent 
motion to reconsider. 
The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. In these proceedings, it 
is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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). Upon 
review, we will dismiss the combined motions. 
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 l&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 foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national 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. 
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). 
In dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we acknowledged the Petitioner's contention of the importance 
oflogistics and the cargo and freight industry in the United States, noting that his arguments addressed 
the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor, rather than its national importance. We also explained 
the reasons why the evidence ofrecord did not show how the Petitioner's proposal to operate a small 
business will benefit the United States on a national level. We informed the Petitioner that, 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 specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We further observed 
that the forecasts outlined in the Petitioner's business plan did not establish that the benefits to the 
regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
We ultimately concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed endeavor to operate a 
small business would nationally impact the logistics of the cargo and freight industry or benefit the 
regional or national economy. Since the record did not establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, as required under Dhanasar 's first prong, we determined that 
he had not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. We also 
reserved his appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under Dhanasar 's second and third prongs, as 
considering them would have served no meaningful purpose. 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 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). We 
dismissed the appeal. 
On a motion to reconsider, the Petitioner repeated arguments concerning the merit of his proposed 
endeavor and restated assertions that he made on appeal regarding the purported national importance 
of the endeavor. We informed the Petitioner that the merit of the proposed endeavor was not at issue, 
as the Director found that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and we concurred in our appeal 
decision. We explained that, to establish merit for a motion to reconsider of our latest decision, a 
petitioner must both state the reasons why they believe the most recent decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy and must specifically cite laws, regulations, precedent decisions, 
and/or binding policies they believe we misapplied in our prior decision. The Petitioner cannot meet 
the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions and restating 
his initial claims; the motion must demonstrate how we erred as a matter of law or policy. See Matter 
of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by 
which the party may submit, in essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging 
error in the prior decision). 
While we acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted a brief containing arguments, we determined 
that the Petitioner did not directly address the conclusions we reached in our immediate prior decision 
or provide reasons for reconsideration of those conclusions. We explained that the brief in support of 
the motion to reconsider lacked any cogent argument as to how we misapplied the law or USCIS 
policy in dismissing the appeal. We dismissed the motion. 
2 
For the sake of brevity, we incorporate our previous analysis of the record and will repeat only certain 
facts and evidence as necessary to address the Petitioner's assertions on motion. Our previous decision 
in the matter of the Petitioner's appeal was ID# 24993021 (AAO FEB. 13, 2023). Our most recent 
previous decision in the matter of the Petitioner's subsequent motion to reconsider was ID# 27290965 
(AAO SEP. 11, 2023). 
A. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner reiterates the importance of his proposed endeavor to own and operate a 
business offering cargo and freight services inl IFlorida. The Petitioner offers previously 
submitted evidence and arguments which we considered when dismissing his previous motion. The 
Petitioner's instant motion to reopen does not provide new facts supported by documentation that 
establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's discussions of the cargo 
and freight industry do not refute or overcome the conclusions in our previous decision, and he does 
not sufficiently explain how this information demonstrates that his endeavor will have a national 
impact. As the Petitioner does not submit new facts to demonstrate that he meets the "national 
importance" requirement ofDhanasar's first prong, he has not overcome our prior determination. The 
motion to reopen is therefore dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner reasserts that his proposed endeavor has national importance, but he does 
not contend that our decision to dismiss his appeal was erroneous, nor does he explain whether our 
decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. We stress that 
to establish merit for reconsideration of our latest decision, a petitioner must do both of the following: 
state the reasons why the petitioner believes the most recent decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy; specifically cite laws, regulations, precedent decisions, and/or binding 
policies they believe we misapplied in our prior decision. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
In light of the above, we conclude that this motion does not meet all the requirements of a motion to 
reconsider and must therefore be dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
3 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4