dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 20, 2024 In Re: 30233066 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, who intends to operate a freight company, 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. § 1153(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. 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on 
appeal under 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 nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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 EB-2 eligibility, 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, 1 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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in an unpublished decision, in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 2 The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the 
requirement ofa job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied any prongs of the Dhanasar national interest test. 
Materials filed with the petition indicate that, in her native Russia, the Petitioner studied economics 
and finance before working at various banks from 2010 to 2020. The Petitioner specified that she had 
been unemployed since April 2020. 3 The Petitioner has been in the United States since August 2021, 
when she entered the United States as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor. 
The first Dhanasar 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. Matter o/Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We look for broader implications. An 
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 889-890. 
The Petitioner's introductory statement includes a section under the heading "My Proposed Endeavor 
Has Both Substantial Merit and National Importance." That section reads, in its entirety: 
I seek employment as an independent owner of the freight business, serving customers 
and customers [sic] throughout the United States. 
This industry is important for the US because there is a huge demand for the 
transportation of goods of varying degrees of importance and volume. I will be able to 
develop effective approaches to the management of transport logistics business 
processes, which will enable processes to be established through optimization of work 
tasks and resources, through a balance of speed, quality, flexibility, and management 
based on indicators that reflect the costs of the process, execution time and resource 
utilization, thus facilitating the analysis and optimization of the logistics process based 
on real values of indicators. 
2 The Petitioner did not submit evidence to establish that her intended occupation in the United States qualifies as a 
profession, but we will not explore this issue further because the appeal can be dismissed on other grounds. 
3 In response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner claimed to have worked as head of logistics for another employer 
from 2015 to 2021, but the Petitioner submitted no documentation to support this new claim. Also, the new claim 
contradicts the employment timeline that the Petitioner submitted when she first filed the petition, which raises overall 
questions of credibility. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
2 
The Petitioner did not provide any further details or supporting evidence to show how her proposed 
endeavor would have a wider impact on logistics management or the trucking industry. 
In a request for evidence, the Director stated that the Petitioner's "vague" and "cursory description" 
did not establish the substantial merit and national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The Director requested "[a] detailed description of the proposed endeavor" supported by 
"[d]ocumentary evidence." 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a business plan for a limited liability company that the Petitioner 
established inl 12022, nearly a year after she filed the petition in December 2021. The business 
plan provides general information about the trucking industry and indicates that "the Petitioner will 
devise effective business strategies designed to reduce expenses and increase its in-house Truck 
Drivers' pay to above current market averages, which will ensure that more capital is injected into the 
national economy." The business plan states that the Petitioner's company "primarily targets 
manufacturers" and "freight brokers," while also providing "car transport service." In terms of the 
volume of business the Petitioner's company will conduct, the business plan states: "The Company 
already has one truck (Ram 3500), and [the Petitioner] plans to purchase nine additional trucks." 4 
In an advisory letter, an associate professor atl Idetailed the claimed benefits arising 
from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, stating, for example: "Cargo transport services provided by 
[the Petitioner's company] include the transportation of oversized cargo such as equipment and large­
scale metal constructions. The company provides safe, secure, and competitive logistics for all types 
ofoversized freight." The Petitioner submitted no documenta1y evidence to conoborate these present­
tense descriptions of the claimed services. 
The Director denied the petition, stating: "the business plan indicates the company was formed on 
2022, well after the initial date of filing and does not indicate how the proposed endeavor 
has substantial merit." On appeal, the Petitioner states: "the date of the company's registration should 
not be used as a disqualifying factor." 
The registration date is relevant because a petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements as of the 
priority date, which in this case is the petition's filing date. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l) and 204.S(d). 
Developments after the filing date, such as the formation of the company and specific information 
about its management and operation, cannot establish eligibility as of the filing date. 
The Petitioner's response to the request for evidence did not elaborate on the Petitioner's initial claim 
that she "will be able to develop effective approaches to the management oftransport logistics business 
processes." Instead, the advisory letter and business plan emphasized the claimed benefits, such as 
tax revenue and job creation, that would arise from the operation of the Petitioner's own company. 
In terms of national scope, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established that the 
proposed endeavor would have a significant impact beyond benefit to the company and its customers. 
The record contains statistics about the trucking industry as a whole, but these figures do not establish 
the economic or other impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. 
4 The Dodge Ram 3500 is a pickup truck. The plan does not specify what types of trucks will be purchased in the future. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she "is planning to establish a trucking business that has the 
potential to employ the U.S. workers and impact the economy of the United States." The Petitioner 
also repeats the assertion that she "submitted an extensive business plan ... and, therefore, the date of 
the company's registration should not be used as a disqualifying factor." The Director did not cite the 
company's registration date when discussing the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
Rather, the Director cited the lack of evidence that the proposed endeavor would have a wider impact 
beyond benefit to the company itself and the customers who would use its services. The Petitioner's 
statement on appeal does not address, rebut, or overcome this determination. 
The Petitioner's business plan projects employment of 16 drivers and total sales exceeding $8.6 
million at the end of five years, but the Petitioner did not establish the broader implications and 
significance of these projections in an industry that, according to the Petitioner's cited statistics, 
employs over 1.4 million people with annual revenues exceeding $260 billion. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner's evidence does not meet the burden ofproof to establish 
the substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor. Detailed discussion of the 
remaining prongs of the Dhanasar national interest test cannot change the outcome of this appeal. 
Therefore, we reserve argument on the second and third prongs. 5 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the substantial merit and national imp01iance of the proposed 
endeavor. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we 
will dismiss the appeal as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 ( 1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter olL-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). 
4