dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Moving And Storage Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 16, 2024 In Re: 31360248 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a co-owner and general manager for a moving and storage business, seeks 
employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
record did not demonstrate the Petitioner merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional abi I ity in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Exceptional 
ability means adegree 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 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation , a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish 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. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the field. 3 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant 
this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the 
national interest to do so. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term 
"national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of 
discretion,4 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 Petitioner proposes to work as general manager of his existing moving and storage business 
located in the State of Washington. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish his 
eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director 
further determined that the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, 
and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
A Individual of Exceptional Ability 
In the decision, the Director concluded that the Petitioner met three of the six initial evidentiary 
criteria, professional license, membership in professional associations, and recognition for 
achievements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C), (E), and (F). However, after reviewing the evidence in 
its totality, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he is recognized as having 
a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. Upon review, we 
disagree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner meets the professional license and the 
membership in professional associations criteria and withdraw the determinations to the contrary.5 
3 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted 
and then, if it satisfies the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual , supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
4 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
Circuit Court in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
5 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
In support of the criterion, the Petitioner relies on his commercial driver license to show he has a 
license for his work as a truck driver for his moving and storage business. The commercial driver 
license submitted indicates the Petitioner was issued a Nevada limited-term commercial driver license 
in November 2016 and that it expired in August 2017. Based on this license, the evidence does not 
show that the Petitioner holds a commercial driver license or did at the time of filing this petition in 
2023. The Petitioner also submitted his Washington driver license, however, there is no indication 
that this license is for a profession or occupation. The Petitioner has not established that he has a 
license to practice a profession or certification for his occupation or otherwise met the criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
To meet the criterion, the Petitioner submitted evidence of membership from two organizations, 
American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA) and the Washington Movers Conference 
(WMC). For each organization, the Petitioner submitted a certificate of membership issued to his 
business,,____________ as well as informational material aboutWMC. However, 
the Petitioner did not submit evidence that he, instead of his business, is a member of either 
organization. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit evidence showing either of the organizations is a 
professional association in accordance with the regulations. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
defines "profession" as any occupation having a minimum requirement of a U.S. bachelor's degree or 
foreign equivalent for entry into the occupation. The record does not show that either AMSA or WMC 
requires that its membership body be comprised of individuals who have earned a U.S. baccalaureate 
degree or its foreign equivalent, or that the organizations otherwise constitute a professional 
association. Without more, the Petitioner has not established that he has a membership or that AMSA 
or WMC is a professional association such that it would be sufficient to meet this criterion. As such, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated his membership in a professional association under this criterion. 
The Petitioner claims that he meets two additional criteria demonstrating his exceptional ability, 
commanded a salary or remuneration for services under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) and recognition 
for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). Because the Petitioner does not otherwise satisfy at least two of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), we need not determine whether he satisfies the two additional claimed 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i i)(D) and (F), in order to satisfy at least three of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Therefore, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies 
the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) and (F). See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(noting that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 
unnecessary to the results they reach"); 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 an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Because the Petitioner has not established that he meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) through (F), we need not conduct a final merits analysis to determine 
whether the evidence in its totality shows that he is recognized as having a degree of expertise 
3 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate and conclude 
that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the recognition required for 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
For the above stated reasons, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established his eligibility for the underlying EB-2 
classification, and therefore is not eligible for a waiver of that classification's job offer requirement. 
However, we wi II discuss whether the Petitioner demonstrated a waiver of the labor certification would 
be in the national interest, which was also the basis for the Director's decision. 
The Director determined that while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit, he did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, as required under the 
first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The Director further determined that the Petitioner 
did not establish that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second 
prong, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a 
job offer, and thus of a labor certification under Dhanasar's third prong. Upon de nova review, we 
agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver of the 
labor certification would be in the national interest. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 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, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner and his business partner established a moving and storage business located in 
Washington in 2017 for which he proposes to continue working as its general manager. The Petitioner 
states the business "provides high-quality local and interstate moving and storage services for both 
residential and commercial clients, in addition to selling moving supplies, such as cardboard boxes, 
tapes, and bubble wrap." The Petitioner plans to expand the business to additional locations in the 
western United States, Texas, and New York. Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has established 
his proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
With respect to national importance, the Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his 
proposed endeavor has the potential to have broader implications on his field or wider economic 
effects beyond his business and his clients. The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director erred 
in the decision and made repeated factual errors inferring the Director did not "adequately review" the 
evidence. We agree that the Director's decision has errors, including the State of the location of the 
Petitioner's business by indicating it is in New York, as well as stating the business is a "future" 
business when the evidence shows the business was established in 2017. However, these claimed 
errors were, at most, harmless and do not affect the basis for the Director's decision. See generally 
4 
Matter of O-R-E-, 28 l&N Dec. 330, 350 n.5 (BIA 2021) (stating that error is harmless where there is 
no reason to believe that remand might lead to a different outcome based on the error (citation 
omitted)). 
Arguing his proposed endeavor is of national importance, the Petitioner contends that the Director did 
not give "due weight" to evidence showing his endeavor will impact his industry or field more broadly 
and will have substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a 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 l&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 of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 
1989). Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the evidence submitted 
establishes his eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence, as discussed below. 
The Petitioner argues that the Director did not give due weight to an opinion from an associate 
professor of marketing atl lwhich shows the broad impact of his endeavor 
on the moving services industry. The opinion states that the Petitioner will work "in an area of 
substantial merit and national importance." Given the Petitioner's professional experience and 
knowledge, the opinion maintains that the Petitioner will "significantly contribute to the nation's 
economy" by helping U.S. companies optimize resources, increase productivity, reduce costs, and 
generating revenue. The opinion mentions statistics for companies' estimated costs for logistics and 
procurement functions and that the Petitioner's logistics management experience would benefit the 
productivity and revenue for companies thereby benefiting the industry and the U.S. economy. 
However, the opinion's reliance on the Petitioner's professional experience and knowledge to establish 
the national importance of his proposed endeavor is misplaced. His professional experience and 
knowledge relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here 
is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance 
under Dhanasar 's first prong. 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. Id. at 889. The opinion focuses how the Petitioner's experience would contribute to an 
important industry, instead of focusing on the Petitioner's specific endeavor and its potential 
prospective impact on the U.S. economy or the field of his proposed endeavor. 
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. Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 l&N Dec. at 893. Likewise, the Petitioner does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor will 
substantially benefit the field of moving and storage services, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n 
undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances." Id. The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's work as 
general manager for his moving and storage business would impact his field more broadly. 
5 
The Petitioner further argues his proposed endeavor has economic benefits, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. He points to his business' tax returns to show its gross revenue from 
2018 to 2021 indicating that he invested money into the community by purchasing 15 trucks, hiring 
20 employees, and renting a warehouse. He also maintains that his endeavor would help client 
companies and the shipping industry operate more efficiently by using his knowledge to optimize his 
clients' logistics and thereby save money which would be used towards their employee salaries. 
The Petitioner's business plan focuses on the economic benefits of his proposed endeavor through the 
business' job creation and tax revenue. The plan discusses the importance of the moving services 
industry to the U.S. economy and the expected increase in demand for moving services. With the 
proposed expansion of the business, the plan maintains that the business will create more jobs, increase 
wages, pay taxes, strengthen the middle class, and help meet the market demand due to the shortage 
of tractor-trailer drivers. By expanding the business and its profits, the business would generate taxes 
and net profit income for the community, improve local public services, and support the creation of 
more small businesses. The business plan also describes the business' establishment in 2017, its 
productivity and development since its establishment, and its expansion plans to new locations; the 
Petitioner's professional experience and responsibilities as the business' general manager; a market 
analysis of the moving services industry; and the business' projected marketing, staffing, and financial 
forecasts. 
The business plan details the business' current employees and finances, with its projected job creation 
and profits over its next five years of business. Currently, the plan explains the business has 30 
employees and expects to increase to 90 direct employees in year one and to 234 direct employees and 
448 indirect jobs in year five. Also, it expects payroll expenses to increase from almost $6 million in 
year one to $18 million in year five which would generate about $2.75 million in taxes by year five. 
However, the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for the plan's financial and staffing 
projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized. The business has existed 
since 2017 and currently has 30 employees, but the Petitioner does not offer sufficient details or 
evidence to show how he projects its employment to increase to 90 employees over the next year and 
to 234 employees over five years. Furthermore, the Petitioner claims his endeavor would provide 
economic benefits to economically depressed areas; however, he does not provide details about the 
economically depressed areas or how his endeavor would benefit those areas. 
The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support his claims that his business' future 
staffing levels and business activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to Washington or 
the United States. The Petitioner's statements alone are not sufficient to demonstrate his endeavor has 
the potential to provide the claimed economic benefits. The Petitioner must support his assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. He has 
not done so here. 
The Petitioner expresses his desire to contribute economically to the United States; however, he has 
not established with specific, probative evidence that his endeavor will have broader implications in 
his field, will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or will have other substantial positive 
economic effects to Washington or the United States. Also, without sufficient documentary evidence 
that his proposed job duties as the general manager for his moving and storage business would impact 
the moving services industry more broadly, rather than benefiting his business and his proposed 
6 
clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed 
endeavor is of national importance. 
The Petitioner's statements and business plan stress the expected growth of the moving services 
industry, as well as the need for entrepreneurs in the United States and their benefits to the U.S. 
economy. To support the Petitioner's statements, the record includes articles related to the positive 
effects of the moving and storage industry on the U.S. economy; reasons for relocation and moving; 
benefits of hiring a moving company; benefits of small businesses on the U.S. economy; improving 
access to capital for small and medium enterprises; changes and growth of the moving industry post­
COVID-19 pandemic; moving industry statistics and trends; economic benefits of immigrants on the 
labor force and as entrepreneurs; and the government's consideration of easing visa restrictions on 
highly education Russian immigrants. 
We recognize the importance of the moving services industry and related careers to the U.S. economy, 
and the significant contributions from immigrants who become successful entrepreneurs in the United 
States. However, merely working in the moving services field or starting a moving and storage 
business is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead of 
focusing on the importance of an industry or field, or ashortage of workers in a field, we focus on the 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N 
Dec. at 889. 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. The articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact 
or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
Beyond general assertions, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the work he proposes to undertake 
offers innovations that contribute to advancements in his industry or otherwise has broader 
implications for his field. The economic benefits that the Petitioner claim depend on numerous factors, 
and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his proposed work for his 
moving and storage business and the claimed economic benefits to the United States. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. This identified basis for dismissal is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the 
Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. at 526 n.7 (BIA 2015). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification. Also, 
the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Therefore, 
7 
the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8