dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Logistics And Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 09, 2024 In Re: 34277309 
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 that the Petitioner was eligible 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 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 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. 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) . 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise and will 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2) , https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United 
States. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 T&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,3 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 qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability, but did not establish his eligibility for the requested national interest 
waiver. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
A. National Interest Waiver 
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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
The record reflects the Petitioner intends to continue his career as an entrepreneur in the field of 
logistics and transportation. Due to his prior experience in passenger transport management, cargo 
transport,and tourist transport, the Petitioner plans to operate his own company, 
which will specialize in executive ground transportation services, and offer a "comprehensive 
range of services [to] include[] airport transfers, corporate travel, chauffeur services, point-to-point 
transfers, roadshow services, luxury vehicles, personalized services and 24/7 availability." According 
to the Petitioner's business plan, the company would initially operate in I I FL and expand to 
I PA and I I CO during the third and fifth year of operations. Ultimately, the 
Petitioner claimed his company would "introduce innovative transportation solutions and eco-friendly 
3 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). 
2 
I 
practices, enhancing the efficiency and sustainability of shuttle and executive services," and "could 
set new standards in the shuttle and executive transport service sectors" which align with national 
objections of infrastructure development and enhancing urban mobility. Accordingly, he asserted that 
his company would improve the daily quality of life and safety for individuals in the United States 
while also contributing to the U.S. economy. 
In support of his endeavor, the record contains a five-year business plan, letters of recommendation 
from prior customers commending the Petitioner's expertise in shuttle and transportation services, an 
expert opinion letter, documents and information relating to his transportation company abroad, as 
well as articles and industry reports discussing the importance of small businesses in the United States, 
the economic importance of immigrants and entrepreneurs to the U.S. economy, and the transportation 
and logistics industries. 4 
Upon review of the record, the Director concluded that, while the Petitioner's endeavor was 
substantially meritorious, the evidence did not demonstrate the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
national importance. Specifically, the Director concluded that the proposed transportation business 
would not offer benefits that would impact the industry more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. Moreover, the Director determined that he did not demonstrate there was a 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise generate substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally claims that the Director did not apply the correct burden of proof 
and failed to properly consider the evidence on record establishing both his vast experience in the field 
well as the impact of his proposed business endeavor. Relying on the same arguments previously put 
forth, he maintains that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of his 
endeavor. 
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 ofChawathe, 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 agree with Director's evaluation of the evidence, and conclude it 
does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
national importance as contemplated under the Dhanasar framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner continues to rely on the transportation industry, as well as the importance of 
entrepreneurship in general, to assert the national importance of his endeavor. However, when 
considering the national importance of a proposed endeavor, the industry alone is not sufficient to 
establish national importance. We agree that the evidence in the record regarding the importance of 
the industry establishes the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor, but when evaluating the 
national importance, 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. Accordingly, in Dhanasar we 
4 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
3 
explained that we "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. 
The Petitioner claims on appeal that, through his company, he intends to "revolutionize the industry 
through innovation, efficient practices, and unparalleled customer service," and he is "poised to 
generate employment opportunities within the sector and stimulate economic growth," but the record 
does not support such assertions. He has not explained, for example, how the transportation services 
his company intends to offer-primarily airport shuttle services and executive transportation 
services-would impact the industry at a level commensurate with national importance, or how any 
his efficient practices developed would be disseminated to the industry more broadly. Generalized 
conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 
1756, Inc. v. US.Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit 
conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). In the same way teaching activities 
proposed by the petitioner in Dhanasar were not shown to have a broader impact on the field of STEM 
education, activities which only benefit the Petitioner's customers, like the offerings outlined in the 
business plan, would not have broader implications in the field. Id. 
We also agree with the Director that the record does not establish the Petitioner's endeavor would 
result in significant economic benefits as contemplated in Dhanasar. 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 rise to the level of 
national importance. First, we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions that he intends to operate his 
business within cities designated as HUBZones by the Small Business Administration, but he has not 
explained how his prospective employment of U.S. workers in these designated underutilized business 
zones would have substantial positive economic effects commensurate with national importance. See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. In his business plan, the Petitioner indicated that by the fifth year of 
operations he anticipated generating total sales of $5,932,212 while employing 58 individuals, 
resulting in an annual payroll expense of $1,925,821. Notably, while the Petitioner indicated that the 
58 employees will consist of professional drivers, sales representatives, shuttle drivers, customer 
services representatives, automotive technician and mechanics, among others, the business plan does 
not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these employment projections, or his financial 
projections. But even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were sufficiently 
explained and supported, they do not establish that his company would operate on a scale rising to the 
level of national importance contemplated in Dhanasar and, as stated, the Petitioner has not explained 
how his proposed employment numbers and revenue would impact his company's area of intended 
operations. So, the fact that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor may operate in HUBZones does not 
establish that the Petitioner's endeavor is of national importance. 
We also reviewed the expert opinion letter from Dr. B-B-, and conclude it offers little explanation to 
establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In their letter, Dr. B-B- makes 
broad assertions regarding ways the Petitioner's company could "improve the quality oflife and safety 
of citizens," without identifying specific ways in which the Petitioner's business would impact his 
4 
field more broadly, beyond the benefits provided to his customers. For example, while they state the 
benefits of offering accessible transportation and ride-sharing and carpooling services, they do not 
explain how these benefits would go beyond the Petitioner's direct customers. 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'!, 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 of D-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). Here, much of the content of the expert opinion letter 
lacks relevance with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would be of 
national importance, and he therefore does not meet the requirements of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
B. EB-2 Classification as an Individual of Exceptional Ability 
While the appeal must be dismissed as the Petitioner has not satisfied prong one of the Dhanasar 
framework, upon a de novo review of the record, we also withdraw the Director's determination that 
the Petitioner qualifies for the requested EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability because the record does not support such a conclusion. 
The Petitioner asserted eligibility for the requested EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual with 
exceptional ability by claiming he met five of the six categories of evidence at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii): official academic record in the specialty at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), 
ten years of full-time experience in the occupation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), commanding a 
salary demonstrating exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D), membership in professional 
associations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E), and evidence of recognition for achievements and 
significant contributions to the industry at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
In their decision, the Director determined the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the six evidentiary 
criteria, and concluded that, after consideration of the evidence under a final merit's determination 5, 
the Petitioner established himself as an individual of exceptional ability. Notably, however, the 
Director did not explain which evidentiary criteria the Petitioner met, or how the evidence in the record 
satisfied the criteria. And the decision does not explain how the totality of the evidence demonstrates the 
Petitioner has a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his field. 6 As such, 
for the reasons discussed below, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner qualifies 
for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
In the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Director determined that the Petitioner met the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and (B), but did not satisfy the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) and (F). In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner asserted 
5 See, 6 USCIS Policy Manual. supra, F.5(B)(2). 
6 Id. 
5 
that he met the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D),(E), and (F). For the reason's 
discussed below, we conclude that the record does not establish the Petitioner has met the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D),(E), and (F), and therefore he has not met at least three of the 
six criteria. 7 
Evidence that the Petitioner has commanded a salary, or other remuneration.for services, 
which demonstrate exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that an individual has commanded a salary or 
remuneration for services that is indicative of their claimed exceptional ability relative to others 
working in the field. 8 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of his 2023 tax return confirming the income 
and profits he received from his business abroad. However, he did not provide evidence comparing 
his income to others working in his field, or otherwise explain how his earnings from his company are 
indicative of exceptional ability relative to others working in his field. The Petitioner bears the burden 
of establishing that they meet each criterion with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. He has not done so here, and we thus conclude that he has not 
satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence ofmembership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
The Petitioner initially submitted evidence of their memberships in the Association of Supply Chain 
Management and the American Management Association. In their RFE, the Director informed the 
Petitioner that the regulatory definition of "profession" includes an occupation whose minimum 
requirement for entry is a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
The Director explained that, because the Petitioner did not provide evidence to establish that either 
association requires at least a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent as a minimum 
requirement for membership or that they otherwise constitute as professional associations, the 
Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner did not acknowledge the Director's conclusions that 
the evidence did not show the associations were "professional associations" as contemplated by the 
regulations. Instead, the Petitioner submitted evidence of their membership in the National Small 
Business Association beginning a month after the Director issued the RFE, along with a printout from 
the association's website providing background information on the organization. First, a petitioner 
must establish eligibility for the benefit they are seeking at the time the petition is filed. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). Additionally, the record also 
does not establish that the National Small Business Association limits its memberships to 
"professionals," as contemplated by the regulation, rather the evidence states the organization is a 
"small-business advocacy organization," Without more, we cannot conclude the Petitioner has met 
this criterion. 
7 The Petitioner did not claim eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) relating to having a license to 
practice the profession. Accordingly, we will not discuss this criterion. 
8 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
6 
Evidence ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
The plain language of this criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that he has received recognition 
for "achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field." The record contains 
numerous letters from the Petitioner's former customers, colleagues, and peers in the industry 
commending the Petitioner's skills, abilities, and business acumen in providing various transportation 
services. For example, in the letter from E-A-N-, he praised the Petitioner for "exceeding [his] 
expectations" and "achiev[ing] significant savings based on the strategies [he] presented" to help the 
writer's company develop route and driver schedules. Additionally, in the letter from S-R-B-L, the 
writer elaborated on the Petitioner's work to alleviate the difficulties faced in parking and performing 
preventative maintenance on buses during out-of-state trips, explaining that his "initiative significantly 
reduced expenses, demonstrating his ability to think strategically and find innovative solutions." 
Similar complementary letters were provided by the Petitioner's past customers, commending him for 
excellent services and his "willingness to go above and beyond to provide personalized solutions" for 
his customers. But these letters do not identify significant contributions he has made to the industry 
or field. Rather, the letters highlight his business achievements, ways in which he contributed to the 
operations of his customers' businesses, and establish that he was successful in his prior pursuits and 
has served as a trusted business partner and transportation provider. 
Because the evidence does not show that his work has had an impact beyond his customers and their 
specific projects at a level indicative of achievements and significant contributions to the industry or 
field, the Petitioner has not established that he fulfills this criterion. 
Even though the Petitioner has not established that he meets three of the six evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), we nonetheless have reviewed the record in the aggregate, and conclude 
that the record does not establish the Petitioner possesses a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in his field. 
In reviewing the totality of the evidence in a final merits determination, we consider the quality of the 
evidence.9 While we acknowledge that the evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner has extensive 
training, and experience within the transportation field, as well as memberships in associations 
supporting the business field, this evidence does not establish he possesses expertise significantly 
above that ordinarily encountered in the field. In the record, the Petitioner asserts that he has a strong 
background in financial management and expertise in monitoring expenses of fleet operating costs, 
and that he "specializes in fleet monitoring and efficiency, implementing smart solutions, and reducing 
gas costs," however, the Petitioner does not explain how this positions him as an individual with 
expertise significantly above those in his filed. For example, the Petitioner has not explained what 
specific unique experience he has that shows his expertise is sign[ficantly above others in his field. 
And while the record contains multiple letters of recommendation, the letters speak broadly regarding 
the Petitioner's expertise without indicating that his experience has provided him with expertise above 
others in the field. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
9 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.5(B)(2). 
7 
Accordingly, the record does not establish the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 immigrant classification 
as an individual of exceptional ability, and we therefore withdraw the Director's determination. As 
the Petitioner has not shown that the proposed endeavor is of national importance under prong one of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework, it would serve no legal purpose to issue a request for evidence 
for further investigation and analysis of the Petitioner's categorical eligibility for EB-2 classification. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that he satisfies the regulatory requirements for classification as a 
an individual of exceptional ability. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong 
of the Dhanasar analytical framework, and therefore 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 under Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
24, 25 ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 
unnecessary to the results they reached"); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8