dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Construction And Trucking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 10, 2024 In Re: 30644146 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the construction and trucking industry, seeks employment-based 
second preference (EB-2) 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 
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 although the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, he had not established that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 1 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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 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 
1 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 See also 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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The Petitioner proposes to establish a construction and trucking business. The Petitioner states that 
the "[c ]onstruction and the trucking industry are the most important components of the American 
economy" and that is why they are "of exceptional value to the [United States]." He will focus "on 
meeting the increasing demand for skilled labor and renovation services in Florida, thereby enhancing 
the quality of life for homeowners, boosting home prices, and fostering prosperous communities." In 
addition, the Petitioner will be "dedicated to providing affordable services for disaster relief to those 
affected by floods, storms, and hurricanes." Regarding the trucking business, the Petitioner states in 
his business plan that he "will serve the construction, manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing 
industry as well as individual users by providing superior-quality freight trucking services with the 
highest professional standards at competitive prices." 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the individual 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. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit, and we agree. 
Turning to the national importance of his endeavor, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not 
establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally contends that the Director did not give due regard to the evidence 
submitted with the initial petition and in response to the Director's RFE. Specifically, the Petitioner 
states that the Director failed to address or acknowledge the Petitioner's intention "to collaborate with 
foundations such as the American Red Cross, Florida Disaster Fund, and Gulf Coast Disaster Relief 
Fund" to help disaster victims by "delivering high-quality and timely [reconstruction] services at 
prices 20-30% lower than the market average" and "making a positive impact on the local 
community." In addition, the Petitioner contends that the Director misrepresented the business plan. 
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 "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We further indicated 
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. 
We have reviewed the business plans and their projections that the company will directly employ 70 
employees on the construction side and 20 employees on the trucking side within five years and, during 
that period, cumulatively pay wages of over $5 million and generate over $11 million in revenue. 
Importantly, these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their 
basis. In addition, the record does not support that the direct creation of 90 additional jobs in this 
sector or the expected revenue generated by the company will have a substantial economic benefit 
2 
commensurate with the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's stated commitment to "prioritizing recruitment in specific 
counties . . . facing economic challenges," he has not offered sufficient evidence that his company 
would employ a significant population of workers in these "opportunity zones." Although the 
Petitioner's business plan shows his intention to expand his company, the record does not show that 
benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar . Id. 
In addition, the Petitioner relies on more than his 25 years of experience in the construction industry. 
However, the Petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second 
prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The 
issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national 
importance of his proposed work. 
While we may agree that the Petitioner's stated intentions are admirable, he has not offered sufficient 
information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises 
to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching 
activities did not rise to the level of national importance because they would not impact his field more 
broadly. Id. at 893. Here, we similarly conclude that the record does not show that the Petitioner's 
role stands to sufficiently extend beyond his own company and its clients to impact the industry more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Nor has he shown that the particular work 
he proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in construction 
or trucking or otherwise has broader implications for his field. 
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address his eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. 3 The burden 
of proof is on the Petitioner to establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The Petitioner 
has not done so here and, therefore, we conclude that he has not established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3