dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Logistics Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 11, 2024 In Re: 35554845 
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 a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
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 he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We rejected the Petitioner's appeal as untimely filed and dismissed a subsequent 
motion. Upon review, we determined the reject notice was issued in error. We reopened the matter 
on a Service motion under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5) and provided the Petitioner with an opportunity to 
submit a brief. 1 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 
they must then establish 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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 
2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states 
1 The Petitioner previously presented a brief in support of his appeal. We will consider the arguments in his appellate 
brief. 
that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 2 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 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 a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner indicated that he intended "to expand the company 
I I ... The expansion project provides for the increase in services by including the consulting, 
advisory, and solutions area for logistics management." He further stated: 
Since 2019, la legal company LLC (Limited Liability Company), located in 
_ belonging to the State of Florida. 
The company is focused on the B2B (Business-to-Business) Market, serving small, 
medium, and large companies in e-commerce, retail (food, beverages, appliances, 
transport and logistics, construction industry, and technology. I loffers 
specialized ground transportation to the U.S. market that includes distribution and pick­
up services. Currently the solutions are aimed at optimizing costs and loads, for reducing 
distances and delivery times, that is, far beyond just moving goods. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a statement indicating: 
I intend to continue using my experience and knowledge, acquired more than 16 years of 
experience and services, to expand and consolidate a consulting, advisory and solutions 
company for logistics management,! Iin the United States. 
provides the U.S. market with specialized ground transportation that includes 
freight distribution and collection services. The solutions optimize costs and loads, 
reducing distances and delivery times, much more than simply moving goods. 
2 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). 
2 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. 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. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. We agree. 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Id. at 889. This consideration may include whether the 
proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically 
depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global 
implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 
889-90. The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish the potential prospective impact of 
his company and its services. 
In addition to company formation documents and tax returns, the Petitioner's evidence included his 
business plan forl I This business plan provides industry and market analyses, information 
about the company and its services, financial forecasts and projections, marketing strategies, a 
discussion of the Petitioner's education and work experience, and a description of company personnel. 
Regarding future staffing, the Petitioner's business plan anticipates that his company will employ 5 
personnel in year one, 6 in year two, 7 in year three, 8 in year four, and 9 in year five, but he did not 
elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees. 
Furthermore, while his plan offers revenue projections of $570,240 in year one, $802,560 in year two, 
$1,056,000 in year three, $1,330,560 in year four, and $1,626,240 in year five, these projections are 
not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved. 3 
The Petitioner also submitted articles on the importance of entrepreneurship to the U.S. economy, 
entrepreneurship and job creation, small businesses and job growth, immigrants as contributors to 
economic growth, immigrant entrepreneurs' role in the small business environment, and small 
businesses as drivers of the U.S. economy. The Petitioner claims that these articles support the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The determination of national importance does not 
focus on the importance of immigrant entrepreneurship or small businesses in general, but "focuses 
on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, none of 
the articles mention the Petitioner or his company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective 
impact of his specific proposed endeavor. 
In addition, the Petitioner presented letters of support from L-C-P-, M-M-, A-A-, C-S-, C-A-L-C-, E­
P-B-, R-A-N-, and D-P- discussing his business capabilities and experience. He also provided a letter 
from R-N- reflecting interest in engaging I !services. The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, 
and prior work in his field, as well as interest from a potential customer, relate to the second prong of 
the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
3 The "gross receipts or sales" forl llisted in the Petitioner's 2021 and 2022 Form 1065, U.S. Return of 
Partnership Income, fall well short of his revenue projections in the business plan. 
3 
Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national 
importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
The Petitioner also provided an "Expert Opinion Letter" from Dr. V-L-, Associate Professor of 
Marketing atl Iin support of his national interest waiver. Dr. V-L- contends 
that the Petitioner's proposed work "will help clients in understanding and improving their supply 
chains and logistics operations," but he does not identify any specific companies or entities that have 
been or will be serviced byl lin a manner indicative of broader implications to the field or 
industry. Dr. V-L- further contends that the Petitioner's expansion project provides that his company 
plans to add five workers and therefore generate induced jobs and indirect jobs. Even with this 
projected job growth, the record does not indicate that the Petitioner's company would employ a 
substantial number of U.S. workers or otherwise have a significant economic impact as contemplated 
in Dhanasar. See id. at 890. The advisory opinion from Dr. V-L- does not demonstrate how the 
Petitioner's day-to-day management of his company's operations as contemplated by his proposed 
endeavor rises to a level of national importance. The letter from Dr. V-L- does not contain sufficient 
information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show 
that the Petitioner's specific proposed work offers broader implications in his field or substantial 
positive economic effects for our nation that are indicative of its national importance. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated the Petitioner had not demonstrated 
that his undertaking "has broader implications in logistics management field, the logistics services 
industry, or the U.S. economy that rise to the level of national importance." The Director also 
concluded the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to offer "substantial economic 
benefits to Florida or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance." 
In his appeal brief, the Petitioner points to his experience in operations management, legal and 
administrative matters, entrepreneurship, and finance. The first prong of the Dhanasar framework 
focuses on the proposed endeavor; not on the Petitioner's prior work in the field, business skills, or 
other qualifications. The national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands separate 
and apart from his education, skills, and job experience. 4 
The Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor "will help clients in understanding and improving 
their supply chains and logistics operations." He argues that future "demand for supply chain 
management will rise" and that "industry revenue is forecast to grow" through 2027. The Petitioner 
further asserts that his undertaking is aimed at improving "the social and cultural fabric of the United 
States by increasing growth opportunities for U.S. companies." In addition, he indicates that his proposed 
work "will be instrumental in improving the social and cultural welfare of the local community because 
he will implement his expert methodologies to alleviate supply chain and logistics challenges." 
The Petitioner, however, has not provided evidence demonstrating that his proposed business activities 
would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an 
endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to 
4 See Dhanasar at 890. 
4 
substantiate such claims . Furthermore, while any basic economic activity has the potential to 
positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential 
prospective impact of his proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications in his field or to 
generate substantial positive economic effects in the region where his company will operate or in other 
parts of the United States. 
The Petitioner also claims that his company's projected 9 direct jobs stand "to generate another 10.49 
induced jobs and 18.68 indirect jobs ." As for the job creation that the Petitioner asserts his proposed 
endeavor will offer, the record does not contain sufficient supporting evidence. The preponderance of 
the evidence standard requires the evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably true, where 
the determination of truth is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, truth is to be determined not by the quantity 
of evidence alone but by its quality. See id. Here, lack of supporting details and evidence detracts from 
the credibility and probative value of the Petitioner's claim regarding job creation and other substantial 
positive economic effects. 
In addition, the Petitioner argues that his proposed "endeavor will add business to the U.S. market and 
will help small businesses in the U.S. thrive." He further asserts that his undertaking "would substantially 
contribute to the small business sector in the United States" and "help U.S. businesses persevere through 
the economic crisis." 
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. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide logistics consulting and transportation services 
to his company's clients, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that 
the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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 broadly. Id. at 893. Here, we 
conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
his company and its clientele to impact his field, the logistics and transportation industry , societal 
welfare, U.S. cultural interests , or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. 
Furthermore , the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Specifically, he has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or in other parts of the 
United States. While the Petitioner claims that his company has growth potential, he has not presented 
evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
In addition, although the Petitioner asserts that his endeavor stands to generate direct and indirect jobs for 
U.S. workers, be has not offered sufficient evidence that his endeavor offers Florida or the United 
States a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity . 
The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic 
5 
effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or has other broader implications 
indicating national importance. 
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
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. As this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of his eligibility under the second and 
third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 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 of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to 
reach alternative issues on appeal where the applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
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. 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. 
6