dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Logistics Operations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 22, 2024 In Re: 31068884 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of logistics operations, 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 classification. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner was an advanced degree professional and that 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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 that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 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). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Visa Classification 
As indicated above, the Petitioner must first 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. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was not a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The Director noted the Petitioner's foreign diploma was equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree, but that he did not demonstrate he possessed at least five years of progressive post­
baccalaureate experience in the specialty. Specifically, the Director determined that provided 
employment verification and expert opinion letters were from third parties, including the Petitioner's 
accountant and a professor, and not from his current or former employers as required by the 
regulations. The Director indicated that letters from third parties cannot take the place of employment 
letters from the Petitioner's former employers unless he can demonstrate the unavailability of this 
primary evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again points to the same previously submitted expert opm10n and 
employment verification letters asserting that they establish that he had over five years of experience 
in logistics and transportation. 
If a petitioner has established that they have a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent, they must 
then show they have at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. The evidence must 
be in the form ofletter(s) from current or former employer(s) and must include the name, address, and 
title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the individual. If such evidence 
is unavailable, other documentation relating to their experience will be considered. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(g). 
The Petitioner does not articulate on appeal how the Director's determination with respect to his 
progressive experience was in error, namely, why it has only submitted evidence of his prior 
employment from third parties and not from his actual former employers. The Petitioner also does 
not indicate why such employment verification letters from his former employers are unavailable. The 
Petitioner must specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the 
unfavorable decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Since the Petitioner has not articulated any error in 
the Director's determination with respect to his required five years of progressive experience in his 
specialty, nor indicated why employment verification letters from his former employers are 
unavailable, we will adopt and affirm the Director's conclusion as to this issue. 
2 
As discussed by the Director, the provided letters do not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B), and therefore, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the EB-2 
classification as an advanced degree professional. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
The Petitioner proposed to serve as a chief executive officer at his company, ______ He 
stated that his company "will provide reliable road freight services by transporting cargo quickly and 
efficiently, meeting the demands of numerous supply chains in the country." In addition, the Petitioner 
stated that his company "aims to be a reference in the logistics sector, handling distribution, delivering 
efficiently, and being environmentally responsible." 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was of substantial merit. However, 
the Director also concluded the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor had national 
importance. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director did not give due regard to the evidence 
submitted, specifically his resume, business plan, documentation of his work in the field, letters of 
recommendation, and industry reports and articles. He further asserts he qualifies for a national 
interest waiver. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We look for broader 
implications. An 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 889-890. 
The Petitioner highlights staffing and revenue projections in the submitted business plan projecting 
that his company will employ 42 employees, pay wages of $9.2 million, generate $26.8 million in 
gross revenue, and pay $298 thousand in income taxes, all within its first five years of operation. 
Importantly however, these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing 
their basis, nor do they demonstrate a significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to 
substantially impact the regional or national economy. Specifically, the record does not support that 
the creation of 42 additional jobs in this sector or the expected revenue generated by the company will 
have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the national importance element of the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
In addition, the Petitioner states that he will establish his company in Florida, "in a [sic] SBA 
HUBZone area that will help to fuel small business growth in historically underutilized business 
zones." 2 However, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that his business will be in a 
HUBZone area. Further, he did not indicate that his endeavor would participate in the HUBZone 
2 Under the HUBZone program, the U.S. government seeks to fuel small business growth in historically underutilized 
business zones, with a goal of annually awarding at least 3% of federal contract dollars to HUBZone-certified companies 
annually. See "HUBZone Program," https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistanceprograms/hubzone­
program. 
3 
program or that it would be eligible to do so. Moreover, while the Petitioner states that his company 
"will make a stand and impact, generating jobs for U.S. workers in these underutilized areas, 
improving the wages and working conditions for the U.S. workers, and helping the local community 
bring investments to the region," the Petitioner has not provided evidence that the area where his 
company intends to operate is economically depressed, that it would employ a significant population 
of workers in that area, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial 
economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or related tax revenue. While the 
intention is meritorious, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support these claims. 
The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Further, the Petitioner relies, in large part, on his more than 12 years of experience in the fields of 
business, logistics, and transportation to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
However, the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations 
under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, 
by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes the importance of the logistics and transportation industry and 
submitted industry reports and articles discussing the industry and immigrant entrepreneurship. 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 id. at 889. We further 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. While the 
Petitioner proposes to work in an important industry or field, this is not necessarily sufficient to 
establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Further, the articles and reports 
do not discuss any particulars of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its prospective impact rising 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 
Petitioner has not established how providing his logistics and transportation services stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. We acknowledge that the Petitioner asserts his proposed endeavor stands to 
affect the national economy by "offering economic convenience and agility" to "small and medium­
sized U.S. companies," "promoting growth and expansion and driving change with innovation," 
"stimulating the domestic job market," and generating "new jobs for American workers." 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 
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 industry or to 
generate substantial positive economic effects in the region where his company will operate or in other 
parts of the United States. 
4 
The Petitioner further asserts his "in-depth knowledge of the business environment in Brazil will 
benefit U.S. companies and the U.S. economy" and that"[ m Jany U.S. companies are doing or planning 
to do business in Brazil to take advantage of the size of the Brazilian economy and its vast market 
opportunities." But the business plan in the record does not indicate that the Petitioner will do any 
business in Brazil. 
Finally, we reviewed the Petitioner's letters of recommendation where the authors praise the 
Petitioner's abilities in the logistics and transportation industry and his personal attributes, indicating 
that he would be an asserted asset to the workplace. However, the letters of recommendation do not 
offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor and how it would extend 
beyond his clients. As such, the letters are not probative in demonstrating the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the first prong of Dhanasar. 
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address his eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. 3 The burden 
of proof is on the Petitioner to establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The Petitioner 
has not done so here and, therefore, we conclude that he has not established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 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 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5