dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 30, 2024 In Re: 32289797 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a truck driver, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for a 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 Christa's , Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 
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 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&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, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The 
Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 immigrant classification as an advanced 
degree professional, and we will not disturb this determination. 1 The remaining issue, therefore, is 
whether the Petitioner has met his burden of proof to establish that he merits a discretionary waiver of 
the job offer requirement "in the national interest." For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that 
he has not. 
The Petitioner indicated in Part 6 of the instant Form 1-140, Basic Information About the Proposed 
Employment, that he intends to work as a "transportation, storage and distribution 
manager/entrepreneur," and that his job will be to "plan, direct, or coordinate transportation, storage, 
or distribution activities in accordance with organizational policies." 
In a business plan submitted with the Form 1-140, the Petitioner specified that his proposed endeavor 
relies on developing a corporation (C-C-)2 a "transportation services firm that provides dry cargo 
freight truck transportation outsourcing services and long-haul reefer truck transportation outsourcing 
services planned to be headquartered in Illinois with one business unit in Texas." He also submitted 
a separate affidavit, clarifying that he is "the sole Partner/Owner of [C-C-], LLC" and that his main 
responsibilities include but are not limited to practicing safe driving habits, being productive, 
conducting pre-trip inspection, taking care of personal health, observing all government and company 
regulations at all times, and maintaining a logbook. 
In addition to the business plan and affidavit, the evidence in support of the Petitioner's national 
interest waiver request includes his resume, membership and training certificates; employment 
verification, recommendation, and investor letters; general information about logistics and supply 
chain management trends; industry reports and articles; and articles about immigrant entrepreneurs, 
immigrant workforce, and future immigrant jobs growth. 
In denying the Form 1-140, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as 
an independent business owner and a truck driver for his own company was of substantial merit and 
national importance, but that the Petitioner did not establish he was well positioned to advance it and 
did not show that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of 
a job offer and, thus labor certification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts generally that the Director "did not apply the proper standard of proof 
in this case, instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applied the law to [his] detriment." 
He states that the decision is therefore against policy and erroneous, as the preponderance of the 
evidence in his case does in fact demonstrate that he meets all three national interest waiver criteria 
set forth in Dhanasar. Except where a different standard is specified by law, the "preponderance of 
the evidence" is the standard of proof governing immigration benefit requests. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376; see also Matter ofMartinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); 
Matter of Sao Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151, 152 (BIA 1965). Accordingly, the "preponderance of the 
1 The record includes evidence that in 2008 the Petitioner obtained a foreign equivalent of U.S. bachelor's degree of 
engineering in mineral processing technology from the ______ of Science and Technology, as well as 
evidence of at least five years of progressive experience as a mineral mining engineer. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
2 We use initials for privacy. 
2 
evidence" is the standard of proof governing national interest waiver petitions. See generally 1 USCIS 
Policy Manual E.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While the Petitioner asserts that the 
evidence he submitted to demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver meets this standard, he 
does not identify any specific instance in which the Director applied a standard of proof other than the 
preponderance of evidence in denying his Form 1-140. We are therefore unable to meaningfully 
address the Petitioner's general assertion alleging the improper standard of proof application in his 
case. 
The Petitioner next asserts that the Director did not give due regard to the evidence, which he claims 
establishes that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, as required under the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. He avers that he also meets Dhanasar 's third prong, because he 
has demonstrated that the benefit to the United States from his prospective contributions to the 
transportation industry will be concrete and substantial even if other U.S. workers are available, and 
that the need for his services is sufficiently urgent to waive the labor certification process. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
As an initial matter, although the Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied the first Dhanasar 
prong, substantial merit and national importance, the record does not sufficiently support this 
conclusion. The Director 
stated in the decision that the Petitioner established his "proposed endeavor 
is of substantial merit and national importance," because he had "submitted articles which relate to 
[his] proposed endeavor and appear to support [his] claims that [his] proposed endeavor is of 
substantial merit and national importance." However, the decision does not include any evidentiary 
analysis or reasoning underlying this summary statement. Similarly, in the preceding request for 
evidence the Director indicated only that the Petitioner "made claims as to the substantial merit and 
national importance of [his] proposed endeavor. .. [,] submitted articles related to information about 
[his] proposed endeavor's substantial merit and national importance, a business plan, and an expert 
opinion letter," and that "[t]his evidence sufficiently demonstrate[d] how [his] proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance." 
We observe, however, that the first prong of the Dhanasar framework , substantial merit and national 
importance, focuses on the "specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake," and 
evidence of the "potential prospective impact" of the noncitizen's work rather than generalizations 
about the importance of an industry, field, or profession. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, neither 
the articles about freight trucking industry in general nor the employment verification, investor, and 
other letters address the Petitioner's specific endeavor. 
For example, a fellow truck owner-operator working for M- Trans Inc. states in his letter that "[the 
Petitioner's] contributions to the transportation industry and his ability to adapt and excel in different 
professional roles make him an outstanding candidate," that he "is the person of great value who has 
made a significant investment in the field of transportation," and that "[h ]is presence in the United 
States has the potential to make a substantial impact on the U.S. transportation industry, contributing 
positively to the national interest." However, he does not explain the basis for these statements, and 
the Petitioner has not provided evidence to show the extent of his contributions to the transportation 
industry while working as a long distance truck driver for a freight trucking company and his own 
business. Similarly, a potential investor from Mongolia indicates in his letter that he is committed to 
3 
investing m the Petitioner's company but does not provide any details about the Petitioner's 
undertaking. The Petitioner's former co-workers describe his work performance as a long distance 
truck driver, a restaurant assistant manager, and a mineral laboratory technician but do not mention 
his proposed endeavor in the United States. As such, the letters do not show how the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor of operating a long distance cargo trucking and storage business and working as a 
truck driver may be of substantial merit and national importance. Lastly, we cannot give significant 
weight to an "Expert opinion letter for the classification as EB-2" from an associate professor of 
business administration, marketing and management at a Tennessee university (the professor) as 
evidence that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor meets this criterion. The professor opines that "the 
weight of evidence favors granting [the Petitioner] National Interest Waiver because he satisfies the 
three-prong test outlined in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016 'Dhanasar')." He 
further states that based on his "education and professional experience in business administration he 
is well-qualified to provide an opinion regarding the level and significance of the [Petitioner's] ability, 
in addition to evaluating the appropriateness of granting him a National Interest Waiver." The 
professor clarifies that he offers this opinion "as an independent expert, never having professionally 
or personally engaged with the [Petitioner]" and further states that "[r]ecognizing [the Petitioner's] 
performance in the field of cargo/freight transportation, [he] render[s] his highest opinion of [the 
Petitioner's] exceptional contributions, unique abilities, and the value [the Petitioner] will have to the 
U.S. workforce." The remainder of the professor's opinion consists of a self-described "analysis and 
advisory evaluation of [ the Petitioner's] exceptional ability and eligibility to receive a National Interest 
Waiver" under the Dhanasar framework, based on the Petitioner's own statements in the business plan 
and resume, as well as the information in the industry reports about the importance of the 
transportation industry and demand for freight transportation services. The professor concludes that 
the Petitioner's work has both substantial merit and national importance; that he is well-positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor "through "his education and hands-on work experience"; and that "in 
granting this waiver the United States has an opportunity to directly benefit from [the Petitioner's 
knowledge and expertise in the field of cargo/freight transportation .... " We observe, however, that 
there is nothing in the letter or supporting evidence to suggest that evaluating an individual's eligibility 
for an immigration benefit is within the professor's area of expertise. Moreover, the basis for the 
professor's statements about the Petitioner's contributions, education, work experience, and 
performance in the field of cargo freight transportation is not clear, as he confirms that he has never 
engaged with the Petitioner professionally or personally and he does not claim to be familiar with the 
details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. The professor's opinion, therefore, does not 
have significant probative value with respect to the proposed endeavor's substantial merit and national 
importance and the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver in general. 
Furthermore, in determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance "we look for 
broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and consider whether "[ a ]n undertaking may have 
national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular 
field" or whether it "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-
90. 
The Petitioner indicated in his business plan that he specifically chose "to define the location for [his 
company] in underutilized business zones ... in the States of Illinois and Texas" because he "wants 
to take a stand and impact generating jobs for U.S. workers in these underutilized business zones ... , 
4 
improving the wages and the working conditions for the U.S. Workers, helping the Local Community 
bring investments to the region and economic development" and "[a ]t the same time, providing 
Transportation Services in the [United States], [and] improving U.S. economy." The Petitioner further 
indicated that as the company's CEO he would hire unspecified numbers of transportation, storage, 
and distribution managers; sales representatives, laborers and stock, freight, and materials movers; 
janitors and cleaners; heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers; general and operational managers; bus 
and truck mechanics and diesel engine specialists; administrative assistants, accountants, and auditors. 
He stated that the impact of his proposed endeavor "is evident by generating (20) direct and (3 8) 
indirect jobs for U.S. workers across the States of Illinois and Texas which has the potential to attract 
investment and expand throughout the U.S. in the following years." The Petitioner specified that he 
intends to invest his savings of $250,000 in the company the first year and that he will reinvest part of 
the profits generated in the next four years, a total of $950,000. According to the business plan, the 
Petitioner's role will be that of the company's CEO and transportation, storage, and distribution 
manager, and the company will generate a total revenue of $11. 9 million in five years with the 
projected net income of $1.31 million, and an expected payment of $369, 000 in federal tax income. 
Aside from the Petitioner's own claims, however, the record does not contain evidence to substantiate 
his company's staffing and revenue projections. The Petitioner also does not explain how creating a 
total of 58 jobs in Illinois and Texas "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area," or how working 
as a CEO, transportation manager, and truck driver for his own company will impact the freight 
transportation industry more broadly. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
Given these evidentiary deficiencies, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has met his burden of 
proof to establish his proposed endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. Accordingly, 
we will withdraw the Director's summary conclusion on this issue. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner also has not adequately demonstrated that he meets the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. To determine whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, 
we consider factors including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of 
success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards 
achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other 
relevant entities or individuals. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. See also generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual, supra, at F.5(1) (providing a non-exhaustive list of evidence that may demonstrate that a 
person is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor). 
The Director determined that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the Petitioner met the 
above criterion, because it did not show that he gained recognitions for significant contributions to the 
field of his endeavor, that he had a leading, critical, or indispensable role in the endeavor or similar 
endeavors, or that his expertise has been recognized to be significantly above others in the field. 
Specifically, the Director considered the Petitioner's resume, his training certificate, as well as the 
expert opinion and support letters discussed above but found them inadequate to show that his work 
had influenced the field of his proposed endeavor. The Director acknowledged that the intent and 
investor letters indicated that there were individuals who supported the Petitioner's undertaking but 
5 
ultimately found that the record as a whole did not demonstrate he was well positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor. The Petitioner has not overcome this finding on appeal. 
The Petitioner does not identify any specific factual or legal errors in the Director's evaluation of the 
evidence as it relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. Rather, he references his 
business plan and resume and asserts generally that both provide "a comprehensive insight into his 
remarkable career journey, emphasizing notable achievements and key milestones within the 
transportation and mining engineering sectors." He avers that his "proficiency in navigating logistical 
challenges, executing large-scale transportation operations, and applying innovative technologies is of 
substantial national importance," and his "blend of hands-on experience as a truck driver and owner­
operator, alongside a deep understanding of engineering principles gained during his tenure as a 
mining engineer and laboratory supervisor, equips him with a diverse skill set crucial for success." 
Although in his resume and business plan the Petitioner describes himself as an accomplished mining 
engineer and entrepreneur with over 14 years of experience in supply chain and transportation, he does 
not explain the relevance of his background in mineral mining to his proposed work as either a 
"transportation, storage and distribution manager/entrepreneur," or as a business owner and a truck 
driver for his own company. He also does not point to any specific evidence that might support his 
claim of longtime experience in supply chain and transportation, expertise in operating and managing 
complex transportation systems, navigating logistical challenges, and applying innovative 
technologies in the area of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's resume reflects that he began 
working in the transportation industry in 2018 as a truck driver, that he was employed in Mongolia in 
the mineral mining sector before entering the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor (B-2) in 2015, 
and that he thereafter worked as an assistant manager at a restaurant and a delivery driver until late 
2017. Absent additional detailed information and evidence of the Petitioner's claimed skills, 
experience, and expertise in the field of transportation, logistics, storage, and business management, 
the record remains insufficient to show that he has the education, skills, knowledge, and record of 
success in related or similar efforts to advance his proposed endeavor. 
We acknowledge the prior submission of two certifications related to the Petitioner obtained after 
filing the instant Form 1-140, but they do not cure the lack of probative evidence concerning his skills, 
knowledge and record of success in the field of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner states that the 
certifications attest to his dedication to professional development and adherence to industry-specific 
skills and knowledge and also serve as a testament to his active role in advancing his proposed 
endeavor. We are not persuaded. A training certificate from Mongolia indicates that sometime in 
2023 3 the Petitioner "successfully learned with team in training lesson and practice for 8 hours of total 
employee for industrial accident, prevention against pain due to profession, labor safety and hygiene." 
The Petitioner does not explain where and for what purpose he completed this training, or how it is 
relevant to his claim of being well positioned to advance his endeavor. While he also presented a 
certificate of membership indicating that in May 2023, he "has completed the organization's mission 
and is now a member of the US Mongol Truckers Association" he offers no information about the 
organization and the relevance of his membership to advancing his proposed endeavor. 
3 The certificate shows "Date: 2023." 
6 
The Petitioner asserts that the evidence shows he is actively advancing his proposed endeavor, because 
the company's official corporate documents delineate the legal and operational framework under 
which it functions, and the company's website further solidifies its presence, showcasing services, 
mission, and strategic vision thereby establishing a digital and public-facing representation of his 
business activities. In support, he references previously provided tax return, certifications, and letters. 
The record reflects that in March 2022 the Petitioner established his company, C-C- (headquartered at 
his residential address), and that he filed a U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation the same year 
(reporting O net income). The printouts from the company's website indicate that it "provide[s] dry 
cargo and flatbed services in the USA" and that it is "actively hiring company drivers and owner­
operators." These documents alone, however, do not show whether the Petitioner's services are of 
interest to potential customers or users, and they do not otherwise indicate how the actions he took 
signify progress towards achieving his proposed endeavor. 
The evidence is also insufficient to show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has generated interest 
or support from potential investors, or other relevant entities or persons. The record includes a letter 
from the acting director of B- K-, LLC, a Mongolian company described therein only as "a consistent 
force in the realms of foreign trade and road construction." The acting director declares the company's 
commitment to invest in the Petitioner's business and expresses confidence that "this initiative will 
significantly contribute to strengthening economic ties between our two nations." However, the letter 
does not contain any specific information about B-K-, LLC, 4 the nature and extent of the intended 
investment, or any details about what the company's cooperation with the Petitioner's business in the 
United States might look like. Absent such information, the investment letter is not sufficient to 
demonstrate the company's genuine interest to invest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The letter 
from another company, P- Design Build, stating their intent to set up a partnership with the Petitioner 
is similarly insufficient. In this letter, an individual identified as a design architect indicates that the 
company "decided to choose C-C- for their cargo transportation and logistics forwarding for their 
construction needs." The letter, however, contains no information about P- Design Build or any other 
information to indicate that they have a need for the Petitioner's services and the writer is authorized 
to make hiring decisions on the company's behalf. Without additional details, the letters are 
inadequate to show that potential investors, or other relevant entities or persons are genuinely 
interested in supporting or investing in the Petitioner's undertaking. 
Based on the above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that he is well positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor. 
To summarize, the preponderance of the evidence in the record is not sufficient to establish that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, and that the Petitioner 
is well positioned to advance it, as required under the first and second prongs of the Dhanasar 
precedent decision. The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need 
not reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments concerning his eligibility under the third prong 
4 The investment letter is accompanied by a certification that the acting director "is the registered legal owner of immovable 
property of c=]for private house," as well as "immovable property of land and ... unit used for family need." 
and a 2011 "vehicle with a regular trunk" imported in February 2022 and designated as a "truck." The Petitioner does not 
explain the relevance of these documents to B-K-, LLC's expressed interest to invest in his business. 
7 
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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to show that he satisfies the national waiver criteria 
under the first and second prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, he has not 
established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver. The petition will 
remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8