dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY, 7, 2024 In Re: 30338287 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner is an entrepreneurial logistics analyst who 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 (NIW) 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding that the record established that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying visa 
classification, but that he did not merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement in the 
national interest. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (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 an NIW, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the 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 NIW petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 
grant an NIW 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. 
The purely discretionary determination of whether to grant or deny an NTW rests solely with USCTS. 
See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining four U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals in 
concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny an NIW to be discretionary in nature). 
II. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The Petitioner has over two decades of experience in his home country's military where he operated 
in the area of logistics. His proposed endeavor consists of creating a management consulting firm in 
the United States in which he plans to hire 32 U.S. workers over a five-year period. 
We note a portion of the Petitioner's April 14, 2022 definitive statement effectively mirrors the content 
within an article relating to entrepreneurs with only slight alterations to the passage. The content in 
question provides: 
In the United States, small businesses are often called the backbone of the economy. 
Policies that encourage the growth of small businesses, as well as the role of 
entrepreneurship in the market, are healthy for the nation at large. For a capitalist 
economy to thrive, there must be competition, growth, and innovation . . . . Successful 
entrepreneurs are naturally competitive, think outside of the box, ... and see ... how 
an industry ... could benefit from a fresh take. 
The above portion of the passage is taken word-for-word from the internet and the Petitioner offered 
no attribution to it as originating from an external resource. The Role of Entrepreneurship in Job 
Creation and Economic Growth, HuffPost (Nov. 15, 2017), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-role­
of-entrepreneurs _ b_ I 2964394. We do not consider the slight alterations to the original content to 
mean those changes relieved Petitioner of the duty to give attribution to the article's author rather than 
presenting them as his own thoughts. This article existed when the Petitioner filed the petition, and it 
creates the possibility that his other statements or evidence in the record might also contain salient 
portions that are wholly taken from external sources and may not reflect what he actually intends to 
do. 
It is reasonable for USCIS to consider a foreign national's plagiarism from the internet as evidence of 
their overall lack of credibility. Tawuo v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 2015). Because the 
Petitioner has not been afforded the opportunity to address this apparent shortcoming, we do not 
conclude that his other statements in the record lack credibility. But this calls into question the 
independent and credible nature of the Petitioner's claims leaving us hesitant to accept his other 
statements as true on their face, or to grant them full evidentiary value. 
A Substantial Merit and National Importance (Collectively Dhanasar 's First Prong) 
The first prong, 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. 
2 
The Director discussed the Petitioner's evidence to include his business plan and concluded his 
statements were not supported by adequate evidence to prove his claims. The Director noted a lack of 
evidence to show how the proposed endeavor will affect the region or the United States financially or 
through job creation, noting the current size of the consulting industry. 
Within the appeal, the Petitioner contests the Director's determination while claiming the proposed 
endeavor has the potential to significantly contribute to the United States economy through job 
creation and economic impact. Instead of providing further explanation and evidence in support of 
that statement, the Petitioner simply moves on to the next argument against the Director's decision. 
Mere conclusory assertions do not enable us to determine whether a filing party's eligibility claims 
are any more reliable than hopeful speculation. Matter ofHo, 22 I&N Dec. 206, 213 (BIA 1998). See 
also Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354, 355-56 (BIA 1986); Matter ofPatel, 16 I&N Dec. 600, 
60 l (BIA 1978); Matter ofMartinez-Romero, 18 I&N Dec. 75, 79-80 (BIA 1981 ). 
Next, the Petitioner raises arguments that focus on several aspects of the logistics sector and industry 
rather than directly on his proposed endeavor. For instance, the Petitioner discusses "submitted 
Industry Reports and Articles," none of which were about his proposed endeavor. In the appeal, the 
Petitioner mentions the proposed endeavor's focus on the broader industry while at the same time 
attempting to attribute the national importance of the broad industry to his endeavor and he explains 
how the endeavor aligns with "nationwide activities and business productivity." The Petitioner 
reasons that he will create value for U.S. organizations through improved processes and planning. He 
surmises this, in tum, will allow those companies to maintain these successful processes making them 
more resilient to economic downturns directly impacting the domestic job market culminating in new 
job creation and workforce dependability. 
Simple alignment or shared common aspects with industry improvements or goals are not sufficient 
to meet the first prong's national importance portion. In focusing generally on the entire logistics 
sector's impact to U.S. businesses, the Petitioner has not established his specific endeavor will 
substantially benefit and impact the field more broadly. This misplaced focus does not address the 
national importance requirements of the Dhanasar decision, nor does it adequately tie the Petitioner's 
endeavor to those business improvements. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
The Petitioner further offers numerous quotes from articles focusing on entrepreneurialism itself and 
on the field, but again not the proposed endeavor and what level of impact it would have on the 
industry. The types of impact of his entrepreneurialism and the resulting benefits to the economy are 
incremental and are not impactful at the level warranting a waiver of the job offer requirement. 
Lacking from the record is an indication of the extent to which the Petitioner's endeavor would make 
his claimed contributions, and as such, a showing that his endeavor would have substantial positive 
economic effects rather than incremental or nominal impacts. Nominal growth of an industry is not 
sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework. Id. at 889-90. 
We close discussing an issue the Director raised concerning the HUBZone program implemented by 
the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), the Director's decision noted that the Petitioner "stated 
the company will not be in a HUBZone, and is not eligible for consideration of the HUBZone 
program." The Petitioner takes issue with these findings within the appeal. For context, the SBA 
indicates the "HUBZone encourages economic development in historically underutilized business 
3 
zones. The federal government's goal is to award three percent of all prime and subcontracting dollars 
to businesses in the HUBZone program each year." HUBZone administration, U.S. Small Business 
Administration (Mar. 22, 2024), https: //www. s ba. gov /partners/ contracting-officials/ contracting­
program-admini strati on/hubzone-administrati on. 
Further, the Petitioner has not argued that HUBZones in "historically underutilized business zones" 
constitute the same type of "economically depressed area" discussed in Dhanasar when evaluating the 
proposed endeavor's national importance through the potential to employ U.S. workers or through the 
endeavor's other substantial positive economic effects. 
The SBA also provides specific program qualifications for the HUBZone program, and it does not 
appear the Petitioner or the proposed endeavor meet those requirements. The SBA lists the following 
requirements for businesses: 
1. Be at least 51 % owned and controlled by U.S. c1t1zens, a Community Development 
Corporation, an agricultural cooperative, an Alaska Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian 
organization, or an Indian tribe; 
2. Have its principal office located in a HUBZone; 
3. Have at least 35% of its employees living in a HUBZone; and 
4. Be a small business according to SBA size standards. 
HUBZone program, U.S. Small Business Administration (Apr. 4, 2024), https://www.sba.gov/federal­
contracting/contracting-assistance-programs/hubzone-program#id-hubzone-program-qualifications. 
We were unable to locate where the Petitioner has addressed any of these requirements. In fact, 
relating to item 1 above, the proposed endeavor's business plan reflects the Petitioner will own 60 
percent of the company. Furthermore, the Petitioner is not a U.S. citizen as he is applying for this 
immigration benefit as a basis to qualify for lawful permanent resident status. And still under item 1, 
the Petitioner has not proven that the corporation-that is the proposed endeavor-is one of the five 
other types of entities that the SBA requires. 
Moving on to item 2, the location of the proposed endeavor listed on the corporate documents in the 
record are not in a HUBZone, nor are the only other addresses the Petitioner offered as example 
addresses in I I or inl I Finally, the Petitioner does not address what percentage of his 
prospective employees will live in a HUBZone, so he has not shown that he has a plan in place to meet 
item 3. In the end, the Petitioner's HUB Zone program claims have not panned out and they will not 
aid in his effort to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has national importance. 
Because the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not demonstrated 
eligibility for an NIW of the job offer requirement. Because the Petitioner has not established that his 
proposed endeavor satisfies the Dhanasar framework's first prong, he is not eligible for an NIW and 
further discussion of the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. Consequently, 
we will not address and we reserve the Petitioner's remaining appellate arguments. Patel v. Garland, 
596 U.S. 328, 332 (2022) (citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (finding agencies 
are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
4 
decision)); see also Matter of Chen, 28 I&N Dec. 676, 677 n.1, 678 (BIA 2023) ( declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5