dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 26, 2025 In Re: 3 7172902 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, as well 
as a national interest waiver 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S . 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest 
waiver 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit 
may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
The Petitioner indicated that he intended to work in the United States as a logistics consultant. He 
asserted that, as a logistics consultant, he could play a key role in the United States economic 
development by increasing company efficiency; promoting the adoption of advanced technologies in 
supply chain management; helping companies implement sustainable practices in logistics; developing 
risk management and resilience strategies; and facilitating international trade to increase exports. 
Then, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) requesting additional information on 
the nature of his proposed endeavor, he indicated that he intends to operate his own consulting firm to 
assist businesses in the logistics, transport, and cargo storage sectors, including wholesalers and 
manufacturing companies. 
According to his business plan, the Petitioner intends to offer a variety of services, including logistics 
consulting, supply chain management, strategic planning, transportation optimization, warehouse and 
distribution center management, technology integration, risk management, and services related to 
customs and trade compliance. His logistics consulting services will include supply chain analysis 
and optimization, inventory management and control, logistics and transportation consulting, supply 
chain technology implementation, team training and development, and sustainability consulting in 
supply chain. He asserted that these services were designed to "deliver measurable results, driving 
cost reduction, operational improvement, and strategic decision-making," and that his services will 
allow businesses in these sectors to "streamline their operations and reduce costs." Additionally, the 
Petitioner intends to provide training to others in the field, and offer internships aimed at addressing 
the labor shortages in the chain management and logistic fields. Ultimately, the Petitioner asserted 
that his company would improve the efficiencies and effectiveness of his clients' business operations, 
1 See Flores v. Garland. 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
and generate substantial economic impact by enhancing his clients' overall operation efficiency and 
competitiveness. 
Based on his experience and his company's service offerings, he claimed that his company is 
positioned to be a potential leader in the transformation of the logistics, supply chain management, 
cargo and storage industries, and that he is committed to providing solutions that create a lasting and 
positive impact on the national economy. The record reflects that the Petitioner intends to operate his 
company inl INorth Carolina due to the city's range of economic incentives which fosters 
growth in the logistic and manufacturing sectors, as well as central position and access to highways. 
Beyond its initial operations in I I the Petitioner stated that he intends to expand his 
company's operations nationwide by first opening additional offices in North Carolina, then expanding 
to California, Florida, Texas, and New York. 
The Petitioner claimed that his company would result in broader implications to his industry because 
the methodologies and innovations he intends to use can be adopted by other companies and industries, 
and his company intends to publish best practices and participate in conferences and workshops. 
Additionally, the Petitioner asserted he would share his expertise and experiences with new 
professionals; promote and emphasizes the development of digital skills; encourage and support new 
professionals interest in research and development in the field; mentor and advise individuals to set 
career goals; and encourage professional ethics and environmental responsibility. 
In support of his endeavor, the Petitioner provided a five-year business plan, an expert opinion letter, 
letters of recommendation, multiple articles discussing the logistics consulting field and the impact of 
the logistics industry to the U.S. economy, growth trends in the ecommerce industry, logistics 
consulting, government fact sheets on promoting initiatives in the supply chain field, and articles 
discussing the impact of immigrant entrepreneurs. 2 
Upon review, the Director concluded that, while the Petitioner established the substantial merit of his 
endeavor, the record did not demonstrate its national importance because the prospective impact of 
his endeavor would not sufficiently extend beyond his clients to lead to broader implications within 
the industry or field. And, contrary to the Petitioner's assertions in the record, the Petitioner had not 
shown that any trainings or methodologies developed by the Petitioner would have a broad impact on 
his field. Moreover, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish that his endeavor has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise result in substantial positive economic 
effects as contemplated in Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally disagrees with the Director's conclusions, asserting that the 
Director did not adequately consider the national importance of his proposed endeavor, and incorrectly 
concluded that the benefits of his endeavor would be limited to his prospective clients. Notably, 
however, beyond generally disagreeing with the Director's conclusions, the Petitioner does not discuss 
what specific evidence the Director did not consider or otherwise identify a legal error in the Director's 
decision. And, instead of addressing the Director's specific conclusions regarding the limited impact 
of his endeavor, he reiterates the same claims previously made before the Director regarding the 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
3 
national importance of his endeavor, continuing to rely primarily on the importance of the logistics 
and supply chain fields. As an appeal must specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact in the unfavorable decision, this omission alone is grounds for dismissal. See 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3( a)(l )(v). Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver, and will dismiss the appeal on its merits. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Upon 
de novo review of the record, we conclude the record establishes the substantial merit of the 
Petitioner's endeavor, but does not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed 
endeavor of operating a logistics consulting business would have national importance as contemplated 
under the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We 
therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting 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 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his company directly addresses the needs of various economic 
sectors, including retail, manufacturing, and healthcare, and contributes to the national priority to 
optimize supply chains and improve efficiency across industries to enhance the U.S. economy's 
competitiveness. He reiterates that his company is committed to raising the standard of logistics 
consulting by introducing innovative practices and integrating advanced technology, and by offering 
comprehensive training for all employees and sharing best practices with the industry. Yet, the record 
does not contain an explanation or additional information discussing the prospective impact of these 
methodologies. The Petitioner has not explained, for instance, how any methodologies and trainings 
he intends to develop, even if adopted and used by his clients, compare to methodologies that are 
already widely available in the market to allow us to determine if his company's offerings will indeed 
be analogous to the "improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" contemplated in 
Dhanasar. Dhanasar at 889. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Generalized conclusory statements 
that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. 
Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
While we recognize that the Petitioner's services may be beneficial to his prospective customers, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how the services offered to his clients would result in broader 
implications to the field. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not 
rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more 
4 
broadly. Dhanasar at 893. Similarly, the Petitioner's services outlined in his business plan do not 
establish that the proposed endeavor stands to result in broader implications at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
We have also reviewed the industry articles and reports in the record, and conclude that they do not 
establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. While the governmental interest in 
supporting the industry may establish the substantial merit of his endeavor, the Petitioner has not 
shown how his endeavor would meaningfully impact the industry or the initiatives outlined in the 
record. As stated, when evaluating the national importance of a proposed endeavor, the industry a 
petitioner will serve alone is not sufficient to establish national importance, instead we focus on the 
broader implications of "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
And we agree that the record does not establish the Petitioner's endeavor would result in substantial 
economic benefits as contemplated in Dhanasar. In the business plan, the Petitioner indicated that by 
the fifth year of operations he anticipates generating total sales of $9,089,090 while employing 21 
individuals, resulting in an annual payroll expense of $1,741,853. Notably, however, while the 
Petitioner identified the various positions each employee will fill, the business plan does not provide 
sufficient explanation for the basis of these employment projections. And, beyond providing an 
anticipated cost of the services offered, the business plan also does not explain the basis for the 
financial projections. Yet, even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were 
sufficiently explained, they do not establish that his company would operate on a scale rising to the 
level of national importance. Although any basic economic activity has the potential to positively 
impact a local economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity directly 
resulting from his proposed endeavor would result in substantial economic benefits contemplated in 
Dhanasar. 
We have also reviewed the expert opinion letter and recommendation letters in the record, but conclude 
that they also do not sufficiently establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. The expert opinion letter provided by Dr. S-S- primarily relies on the Petitioner's prior 
experience, and the importance of the logistics field, without explaining how the Petitioner's company 
will lead to broader implications to the field. While Dr. S-S- asserts that the company will impact the 
broader logistics and supply chain management fields by offering critical services to its prospective 
clients including addressing efficiency and effectiveness of supply chains, they do not explain how 
these services-even if beneficial to the company's clients- would result in broader implications at 
a level commensurate with national importance. Moreover, when discussing the proposed endeavor's 
impact to societal welfare, Dr. S-S- relies primarily on the importance and impact of broad federal 
endeavors aimed at improving the workforce, but does not explain how the Petitioner's company will 
meaningfully impact these initiatives. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as 
expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS 
is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. 
Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445,460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight 
that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). 
5 
Similarly, while we recognize the recommendation letters on record establish that the Petitioner has 
extensive experience in the logistics field, they do not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. A petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second 
prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The 
issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. We conclude that he has not. 
For the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) 
(holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6