dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Freight Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 25, 2023 In Re: 28311150 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a linguist, seeks 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 l 53(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the 
Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. 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 Christa '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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 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. 
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, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) that the noncitizen 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director determined that "the evidence is sufficient to establish that the 
[P]etitioner is an advanced degree professional." However, the only education the Director addressed 
in the decision is a "bachelor's degree in foreign language ... and literature from I I 
University in 2016." Similarly, in a prior request for evidence (RFE), the Director asserted that "the 
diploma from I I University [demonstrates] that the [P]etitioner received an advancedJ 
degree in 2016." The regulations define an "advanced degree" as "any United States academic or 
professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a baccalaureate." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2) ( emphasis added). Although the regulations also contemplate a combination of a 
"United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of 
progressive experience in the specialty" as equivalent to an advanced degree, the Director did not 
address whether the Petitioner followed his 2016 baccalaureate degree with at least five years of 
progressive experience in the specialty. Id. Because we nevertheless find that the record does not 
establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in 
the national interest, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies second­
preference eligibility criteria. See id.; see also 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"); 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). 
Initially, the Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan to "seek employment as the [c]ommunications 
[d]irector at businesses in the much-needed field of freight transportation." More specifically, the 
Petitioner asserted, "I plan to work as the [ d]irector of [ c ]ommunications at I lor a 
similar company." The Petitioner farther stated: 
[M]y proposed endeavor has substantial national importance for several reasons. First, 
it would have national or global implications within my particular field. Second, it has 
significant potential to improve and farther develop the trucking and logistic industry 
in the U.S., which has substantial positive economic effects. Third, it has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers and has other powerful positive economic impacts, 
especially in economically depressed areas of the United States. Fourth, my endeavor 
will broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural enrichment. Finally, my endeavor 
impacts a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance 
or is the subject of national initiatives. 
2 
Despite repeating language from Matter ofDhanasar, however, the Petitioner did not initially provide 
specific information regarding how the proposed endeavor would accomplish those generalized 
assertions. See generally Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a document titled both "Business Plan" 
and "EB2 Personal Plan," generally dated 2022, referring to the Petitioner as "vice president." The 
document indicates its purpose is to "highlight [the Petitioner's] potential contribution to the U.S. 
economy as a professional employed atl Ia trucking company, where he has been 
tasked with training drivers, communicating with partners, and overall management of the company." 
Despite one of the document's titles referring to it as a business plan, the document does not address 
the Petitioner's employer's operational plan. Instead, the majority of the document-pages eight 
through 32 of 33 total pages-provide generalized information about the "long-distance freight 
trucking industry," "local freight trucking industry," "truck driver shortage," "U.S. dependence on 
trucking industry," "demand for truck transportation," and the "impact of e-commerce market 
growth," without specifically addressing the Petitioner's employer's business or its operational plan. 
The remainder of the document pertains to the Petitioner, his "education," "professional experience," 
"professional development," "personal skills and qualities," and the "endeavor." Therefore, despite 
being copyrighted by.__ ________ __,and one of its titles referring to it as "Business Plan," 
the document is the Petitioner's personal plan, not the Petitioner's employer's business plan. 
The personal plan asserts that the Petitioner would "employ his communication, multitasking, and 
problem-solving talents to improve the operations of the company he works for by educating drivers 
to minimize road accidents and comply with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) 
standards." The personal plan further states: 
In addition to training drivers, [ the Petitioner] will also participate in training courses 
and trade events organized by FM CSA and the Department of Motor Vehicles, where 
he will be able to acquire additional industry knowledge, as well as expand his network 
of contacts which will prove beneficial to both the company he is employed at and the 
U.S. economy as a whole. 
The personal plan adds that the Petitioner "will do research on sustainable and safety programs and 
technology, such as in-cab communications and the OnGuard™ collision mitigation system, and train 
U.S. drivers on how to implement them on tours." Although the personal plan asserts that the 
Petitioner intends "to help create a qualified workforce to address the ongoing truck driver shortage in 
the U.S.," we note that training drivers to be qualified is distinguishable from hiring drivers. 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submissions but concluded that "it is not apparent how 
the [proposed endeavor] has national importance." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts not only that he "seeks employment in the field of the trucking 
industry" but also, for the first time, that his proposed endeavor entails "eventually owning and 
operating his own trucking company, which will be engaged in interstate transportation and will 
benefit interstate commerce." 
3 
A petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 
8 e.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility 
or after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l eomm'r 1971). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an 
effort to make a deficient petition conform to users requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. eomm'r 1998). 
Because the Petitioner's description of the proposed endeavor at the time of filing did not indicate it 
would entail "eventually owning and operating his own trucking company," as he asserts for the first 
time on appeal, his discussion of owning and operating a trucking company present a new set of facts 
that cannot establish eligibility. See 8 e.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49; Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 176. Therefore, we need not address the Petitioner's 
assertions regarding owning and operating his own trucking company further. 
Also on appeal, the Petitioner discusses generalized information regarding the freight trucking 
industry, which he asserts "emphasizes how [his] proposed endeavor has significant national and 
global impact, and considerable potential to employ U.S. workers and has other substantial positive 
economic effects" and, therefore, the record "clearly established that his endeavor on [sic] national 
importance and users erred in finding otherwise." 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first 
prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
The Petitioner's focus on appeal on generalized information regarding the freight trucking industry to 
address whether his proposed endeavor may have national importance is misplaced. As noted, the 
relevant question for determining national importance is not the importance of the industry, field, or 
profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. None of the 
generalized information the Petitioner discusses on appeal about the freight trucking industry-from 
the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT's) Federal Highway Administration, IBISWorld, 
TechNavio, Trucking Dot Org, the DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the U.S. Department 
of the Treasury, and other sources-specifically addresses the Petitioner, his proposed endeavor, and 
how it may have "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or broader implications, such 
as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. Therefore, the publications that discuss 
generalized information about the freight trucking industry but do not discuss the Petitioner and his 
proposed endeavor do not establish whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance. 
4 
Turning to information in the record that discusses the Petitioner and his proposed endeavor, such 
information establishes that working forl Itraining its employees, and managing its 
operations will benefit his employer, his coworkers, and his employer's customers or clients who use 
its transportation services. However, the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor of 
"work[ing] as the [ d]irector of [ c ]ommunications a~ lor a similar company" will have 
"national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
As noted above, the Petitioner repeated language from Dhanasar in his statement submitted at the 
time of filing, asserting that his proposed endeavor will "have national or global implications within 
my particular field," it generally "has significant potential to improve and further develop the trucking 
and logistic industry in the U.S., which has substantial positive economic effects," and "it has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers and has other powerful positive economic impacts, 
especially in economically depressed areas of the United States." However, the record does not 
establish how the Petitioner's endeavor of training truck drivers or researching "in-cab 
communications and the OnGuard™ collision mitigation system" will have "national or even global 
implications within a particular field," beyond merely repeating the language used in Dhanasar. Id. 
Likewise, although the Petitioner repeated language used in Dhanasar regarding endeavors with 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, as we noted above, the proposed endeavor of training 
drivers to be qualified is distinguishable from hiring drivers, and the record does not establish how the 
proposed endeavor relates to a significant potential to employ U.S. workers. See id. Relatedly, 
although the Petitioner repeated language from Dhanasar regarding "substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area," the record does not elaborate on the economic 
effects the proposed endeavor of training truck drivers and managing! lwill have, 
which particular areas will be economically effected, and related information that would support a 
conclusion that the proposed endeavor will have "substantial positive economic effects, particularly 
in an economically depressed area." Id. 
We further note that, although the Petitioner asserted that his "endeavor impacts a matter that a 
government entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives," 
as we addressed above, the relevant question for determining national importance is not the importance 
of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national 
importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See id. 
at 889. The Petitioner's reference to "a matter that a government entity has described as having 
national importance or is the subject of national initiatives" in the context of determining whether the 
proposed endeavor may have national importance is misplaced because-regardless of whether a 
generalized industry or field may have national importance or is the subject of a national initiative­
the record must nevertheless establish how "the specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to 
undertake" may have "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90 ( emphasis added). 
5 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. See 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. As noted above, we 
also reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the Petitioner is eligible for second­
preference classification. See id. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6