dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 17, 2024 In Re: 33750926 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See 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 had not 
established eligibility for 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 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, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
1 See also 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner intends 
to work as a Logistician with IT skills. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) the 
Petitioner provided a business plan in which he outlined his trucking company, stating that it is "a 
dynamic and forward-thinking trucking company based in the state of NY [New York]." The 
Petitioner indicated that the company would specialize in "comprehensive trucking services, offering 
both regional and long-haul transportation solutions." 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the 
national importance, of the proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues the national importance of his proposed endeavor and submits a 
revised business plan and letters of recommendation and interest. Because the Petitioner was put on 
notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not consider it for the first 
time on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l l) (requiring all requested evidence be submitted together 
at one time); Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (declining to consider new evidence 
submitted on appeal because "petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a 
reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial"). 
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 specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Although the Petitioner contends that his submission of articles and business plan discussed the 
importance of the trucking industry across the United States, the matter here is not whether an industry 
is nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his 
specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services as a Logistician through his company in the New 
York area. Likewise, his submission of articles covers a wide range of topics, such as supply chain 
issues and efforts to expand and improve trucking jobs, rather than establishing the national 
importance of his particular professional services or business. 2 
In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that 
"[a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. 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. 
at 890. 
2 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the 
national importance part. 
2 
Moreover, the Petitioner stresses his "experience and industry-applicable expertise." However, the 
Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue 
here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under 
Dhanasar 's first prong. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his business would largely influence the field and rise to the 
level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined the petitioner's teaching activities did not 
rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. 
Id. at 893. The record does not show through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently 
extends beyond his prospective clients or employees, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, while he provided a business plan in response to the Director's RFE for the proposed company, 
the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his business plan's claimed revenue and 
employment projections, even if credible or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Although the 
business plan forecasts revenues from $1.78M in year 1 to $20M in year 5, the Petitioner did not 
establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 
890. Similarly, even though the business plan claims the creation of 7 positions in year 1 and 41 
positions in year 5, as well as 30 independent contractor positions, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
the relevance of these numbers and show that such future staffing levels would provide substantial 
economic benefits to the New York region or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not establish that such employment figures 
would utilize a significant population of workers in the area or would substantially impact job creation 
and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. For all these reasons, the record does not 
demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having national 
importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 
3 See INS v. Bagamashad. 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessmy to the ultimate decision); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4