dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Specialized Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 17, 2024 In Re: 34489446 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a trucking company owner, 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. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on combined 
motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to 
reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter ofCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. 
464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
In our prior decision, incorporated here by reference, we concluded that the Petitioner did not meet 
the first prong of the analytical framework in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), to 
adjudicate national interest waiver petitions as the Petitioner did not establish the national importance 
of his proposed endeavor. 1 The Petitioner indicated that his business, I I will specialize 
"in the safe and secure transportation of expensive and rare cars, vehicle prototypes, oversized and heavy 
1 We also noted in our dismissal that we disagreed with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner established he is an 
advanced degree professional in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i) as the record lacked a properly certified English 
language translation of the educational documents. However, that determination did not form the basis of our dismissal 
because the Petitioner was not on notice of this issue. 
vehicles, and specialized equipment." He argued on appeal that his proposed work is nationally 
important because it "is poised to revolutionize the vehicle and equipment transportation industry within 
the United States." We concluded that the record did not explain how the business would impact the 
overall field more broadly beyond its clients on the level of national importance. See id. at 889 
(providing in relevant part that, to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, the petitioner must 
establish that their specific proposed endeavor has national importance). We also determined that the 
submitted evidence did not support the Petitioner's claim that his business will have significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our 
nation. 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner does not assert any new facts and does not submit any evidence. 
His submission does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. On motion to reconsider, the 
Petitioner asserts we erred in our determination that the submitted evidence did not establish eligibility 
for the benefit sought. He contends that the record proves he meets all requirements for the national 
interest waiver and advanced degree professional classification. 
In our prior decision, we addressed the relevant evidence and determined it did not demonstrate any 
broader implications of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in his field at a level of national importance. 
See id. (stating that national importance is evaluated through consideration of "potential prospective 
impact" and "broader implications") . We acknowledged the Petitioner's plan to reach a total of 50 
employees; $137,624 in net profit; and $2,973,159 in payroll expenses by year five. However, the 
plan did not explain how these forecasts were calculated or adequately clarify how these projections 
will be realized, and the record did not contain evidence to support the business plan's financial 
projections. Further, the record did not illustrate how creating 50 jobs and generating profits as 
projected in the business plan would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national 
importance. See id. at 890 (specifying that an endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area, may well be understood to have national importance). On motion, the Petitioner does not identify 
any misapplication of law or policy in these determinations. 
The Petitioner's submission does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. On motion to 
reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motions will be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2