dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 6, 2024 In Re: 30336766 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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, 8 U.S.C. § 1 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 Texas 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 pursuant to 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 Christo '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. 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 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 Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver 
of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer is warranted. 
The Petitioner asserted that he would work as the chief executive officer of a startup transportation 
company based near I I Florida, that will provide "parcel and pallet shipments through! I 
I I The Petitioner stated that his transportation company would "optimize clients' 
supply chain management strategies and reduce their shipping costs" and "offer clients comprehensive 
logistics strategies for all forms of transportation." The Petitioner indicated his company would hire 
16 workers within the first five years of operations. The Petitioner also addressed his qualifications, 
and he referenced publications that provide generalized information regarding business and related 
topics. 
The Director acknowledged that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, the Director 
concluded that the record does not establish the proposed endeavor "has national or even global 
implications; has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area" or otherwise establish the proposed 
endeavor may have national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. The Director further concluded that the Petitioner is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, as required by the second Dhanasar prong; however, 
the Director determined that the record does not satisfy the third Dhanasar prong. See id. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates information in the record regarding his prior work experience and 
qualifications. The Petitioner also references "industry reports and articles" in the record that provide 
generalized information regarding business and related topics. The Petitioner reasserts that his 
proposed endeavor will have national importance. 
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" and "we consider its potential 
prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." See id. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples 
2 
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" or those with "significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area." Id. at 889-90. 
We first note that neither the Petitioner's prior work experience nor "industry reports and articles" that 
provide generalized information regarding business and related topics are material to whether the 
proposed endeavor may have national importance. An individual's prior work experience relates to 
the second Dhanasar prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed 
endeavor-but it does not inform how the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor an 
individual proposes to undertake may have the type of broader implications indicative of national 
importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. at 888-91. In turn, the "industry 
reports and articles" in the record, including those the Petitioner references on appeal, do not address 
the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how the endeavor may have the 
type of broader implications indicative of national importance. See id. at 889-90. Because the 
Petitioner's prior work experience and the generalized "industry reports and articles" do not address 
how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national importance, they do 
not establish the proposed endeavor has national importance, and we need not address them further. 
The record establishes that the proposed endeavor will benefit the Petitioner, as the chief executive 
officer of his own company, and the clients or customers who will use the company's services. We 
note in particular that the Petitioner's own description of his company emphasizes the benefits it will 
provide to the company's clients. However, the record does not establish how the potential prospective 
impact of the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have the type of broader 
implications contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. For example, the record does not 
establish how the Petitioner's startup logistics and transportation company based in Florida-among 
other logistics and transportation companies operating in Florida and throughout the United States­
may have national or even global implications within the field of logistics, transportation, or any other 
particular field, "such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances." We acknowledge that the Petitioner intends to employ 16 workers within the first five 
years of his company's operations; however, the record does not establish how employing 16 workers 
based near I I Florida, demonstrates "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." See id. 
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 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-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). 
3 
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. 
4