dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 24, 2023 In Re: 28945877 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a logistics manager, 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. 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 Christa's , Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 l&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 their proposed endeavor, and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
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 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
to operate "a distribution and logistics company providing foll truckload hauling services." 2 The 
Director indicated the Petitioner did not demonstrate the proposed endeavor's substantial merit and 
national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains his eligibility for both requirements under the 
first prong. 
As it relates to substantial merit, under the national importance discussion, the Director indicated that 
the Petitioner did not establish substantial merit "in an area such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, education, the arts, or social science." The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The record shows the Petitioner's endeavor of 
owning and operating a distribution and logistics company falls within the areas of business and 
entrepreneurialism. In addition, discussed farther below, the Petitioner also provided documentary 
evidence of "Probative Research" relating to various topics, such as logistics and supply chain 
management. Accordingly, the Petitioner has shown the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor. 
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 
argues his submission of "Probative Research," including a wide of topics covering logistics and 
distribution, transportation, and supply chain management, the Petitioner must demonstrate the 
national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of operating his business rather than the 
importance of logistics and distribution and related fields and industries. 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. 
Moreover, the Petitioner contends that he presented three expert opinion letters who found the 
proposed endeavor has national importance. The letters, however, makes the same arguments, 
discussed above, relating to the importance of supply chain markets, logistics, transportation, and other 
general topics rather than focusing on the national importance of the Petitioner's company. 
Furthermore, the letters do not explain how the Petitioner's services and business have broader 
implications for our country. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the 
national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" 
of his work. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his 
proposed endeavor largely influences the field and rises 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. Likewise, the record 
does not show through supporting documentation how his business stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond prospective clients, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 3 For instance, although the Petitioner's statement claims the 
2 
See business plan fo ~---------------~' submitted at initial filing and an updated business 
plan submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence. 
3 The Petitioner's statement claims the company cunently employs 10 individuals. 
2 
company operates 10 trucks across 19 states, the Petitioner did not show how operating 10 trucks 
broadly impacts the field. 
Further, although the Petitioner provided a business plan, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his 
business' 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. While the sales forecast $1. lM in year 1 to $3M in year 5, the business plan does not establish 
the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, although the plan claims the 
business would create 13 positions in year 1 to 22 positions in year 5, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to Florida or the region or 
U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner, for 
instance, did not show 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 establish 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 his 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 of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 4 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he 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. 5 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 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 T&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) 
(declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden ofproot). 
5 Electronic records reflect that USCIS approved the Petitioner's subsequently filed second preference immigrant petition. 
However, based on record before us and for the reasons discussed in this decision, the Petitioner did not establish eligibility 
for a national interest waiver in this proceeding. 
3