dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Customs Brokerage

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 09, 2024 In Re: 34868765 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a customs broker and chief executive officer, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an as an individual of exceptional ability as well as a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. 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 the Petitioner did not establish eligibility as an individual of 
exceptional ability or 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in 
this matter de nova. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) 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).1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise and will 
substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United 
States. Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the indiv idual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility . 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability . 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2) , https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5 . 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 l&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,3 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. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Visa Classification 
The Director determined that the Petitioner does not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability. 
Since the evidence in the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Petitioner is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion, we 
will reserve the issue of whether he qualifies for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability for future consideration should the need arise.4 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake and its "potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. 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. Id. The term "endeavor" is more 
specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation 
normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that 
occupation. For example, while engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed 
endeavor should describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the 
person will work, rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit as it falls within the 
above-mentioned range of areas of substantial merit. Therefore, we will first identify the Petitioner's 
3 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining 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 is discretionary 
in nature). 
4 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 of L-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). 
2 
endeavor as shown in the record and then evaluate the Petitioner's evidence in support of the 
endeavor's national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that he is the chief executive officer of aviation and customs brokerage company 
and his proposed endeavor is to "start a company,! Ispecializing in customs clearance in 
import and export, aircraft import and export, freight forwarding and logistics, and customs audit." 
He further asserts thatl "will provide comprehensive consulting services for the import and 
export of aircraft parts and components, as well as aircraft and helicopters. With a focus on ensuring 
compliance with tax and customs regulations and meeting delivery deadlines" and "offer consulting 
services in freight forwarding and logistics aimed at reducing global costs, dealing with dangerous 
cargo and solving oversized shipments." He contends that "[b]y facilitating the importation of new 
models of aircraft and aviation components, he contributes to the country's aviation sector's growth 
and innovation. This directly impacts technology transfer and the advancement of the aviation 
industry, which is crucial for the U.S.' technological development." In addition, he states that "the 
importation and exportation of aircraft components require a deep understanding of aerospace 
engineering and manufacturing processes. [His] work contributes to the flow of aerospace materials, 
components, and systems, thereby supporting the growth of STEM-related industries," and "[his] 
expertise in international trade of aircraft components and aircraft aligns with STEM advancements 
by promoting technology transfer, enhancing engineering, and manufacturing processes, and fostering 
global collaboration." The Petitioner's business plan indicates thatl I"will generate atotal 
of 17 direct jobs, being responsible for the opening of 47 indirect jobs" and "generate a final demand 
impact in output equivalent to $2,839,447 in Year 5, as its total revenues will reach $1,625,607." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "erred by failing to address the evidence provided, 
both initially with the 1-140 petition and after with the RFE response, to conclude that the petitioner's 
proposed endeavor holds national importance; and that on balance it would be beneficial to the United 
States to waive the requirement of a job offer and thus of a labor certification." 
Here, the Petitioner relies primarily on the importance of air transport, customs clearance, and supply 
chains to the U.S. economy. However, this misapplies the Dhanasar framework. 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." Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, 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. A local physical therapy business and a shortage of physical 
therapists in the United States does not render the proposed endeavor nationally important under the 
Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner's business plan provides a generalized description of the company's marketing and 
growth strategy and projected sales and claims that "[b]y ensuring the efficient movement of aviation­
related goods, [the Petitioner] facilitates international trade within the aviation industry, ultimately 
promoting economic growth and competitiveness both domestically and globally." While the 
Petitioner contends that his endeavor will "reduce trade barriers, enabling market liberalization, and 
facilitating the seamless flow of aviation goods across borders," and "help the U.S. build stronger ties 
with other countries, such as Brazil," these claims are not supported by relevant or probative evidence, 
3 
details showing their basis, or an explanation of how they will be realized, nor do they demonstrate a 
significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the national economy or 
the economy of thel IFlorida region, the intended location of his company. Generalized 
conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.5 
Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job 
creation directly attributable to his future work, 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. Further, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that I lwould benefit an economically depressed area. The record also 
does not indicate by a preponderance of the evidence - that it is more likely than not - that the 
Petitioner's endeavor will "enhance[e] the accuracy and efficiency of air cargo movements," 
"guarantee the clearance of crucial goods, reducing potential difficulties in the supply chain during 
times of crisis," or "create a positive ripple effect that will benefit not only the aviation industry but 
also broader society by ensuring the efficient movement of goods and resources that are vital to 
Americans welfare." Broad statements and projections regarding the potential growth of the 
Petitioner's business-based upon his experience as a licensed customs broker in Brazil and the growth 
and importance of customs clearance and supply chains to the U.S. economy- do not demonstrate the 
prospective impact directly attributable to his proposed endeavor or establish how his company will 
impact the industry beyond his customers and the operations of his business. In the end, the economic 
benefits that the Petitioner claims will result from his endeavor depend on numerous factors and the 
Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his proposed endeavor and the 
claimed economic results. 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. U.S. Att 'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
4