dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 18, 2024 InRe: 31303153 
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 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 record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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 ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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). 
Once 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 l&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 a matter of discretion 1, 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 qualified as an advanced degree professional but did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons 
discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
A. National Interest Waiver 
The first Dhanasar prong, 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
In the initial filing, the Petitioner asserted his intention to "seek employment as the founder and owner 
of a business in a much needed field of freight transportations," adding that the "freight and cargo 
industry is the lifeblood of the United States economy." According to the Petitioner, while he 
previously sought a national interest waiver due to his experience in craftsmanship, "the COVID-19 
pandemic ... changed [his] plans ... [and he] decided to contribute [his] transferable skills and start 
[his] own transportation company." The Petitioner asserted that his endeavor of "founding and 
managing a company in the transportation industry will have only direct benefits in that it will provide 
critically important services, create jobs, and will stimulate economic activity." In support of his 
endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a personal statement, a commercial driver's license (CDL), copies 
of his personal and corporate tax returns, incorporation documents for his company, D- Transportation, 
LLC, and evidence of the company's ongoing customer engagements. Notably, even though the 
Petitioner indicated he was inspired by the COVID-19 pandemic to establish his transportation 
company, the evidence showed that the company was established in 2018 and had been actively doing 
business since 2019. 
Following the Director's request for evidence (RFE) requesting additional information and evidence 
to establish the national importance of his endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a new personal statement, 
a business plan for D- Transportation, LLC, an expert opinion letter and various articles and reports 
discussing increased demand for freight transportation following the COVID-19 pandemic, 
1 See 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 
disruptions in supply chains caused by the pandemic, and shortages of truck drivers in the United 
States. The Petitioner asserted that "[g]iven the current shift to online orders and the growing need 
for delivery services [the need for his services] in this field [is] of paramount importance." In his 
updated personal statement and business plan, the Petitioner elaborated on his goal "to elevate the 
standards of these services by offering value-added benefits to his clients[,]" which he asserted would 
"make a significant impact on the logistics and transportation industry." According to his business 
plan, the company would initially "focu[s] on freight turnover across the U[nited] S[tates], including 
carrying truckloads from destination to destination," and "hauling freight from suppliers to 
manufacturers to distributors and retailers, operating in partnership with distribution centers, 
warehouses, and wholesalers." Additionally, he stated his company would offer "tracking and logistic 
management solutions for business clients," including freight broker services, truck dispatch services, 
assistance in finding loads, assigning loads and managing drivers, maintaining motor carrier 
compliance, managing weather delays, providing customer care, and managing billing and paperwork. 
The Director concluded that, while the evidence established the substantial merit of the Petitioner's 
endeavor, the record did not show that the endeavor would result in broader implications to the 
industry commensurate with national importance have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, 
or otherwise result in substantial economic benefits contemplated in Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he submitted "persuasive evidence to support his claims." Yet, 
beyond referencing the broad assertions in his business plan, the Petitioner does not identify what 
evidence or information he believes persuasive in supporting his claims, nor does he elaborate on how 
this information refutes the Director's conclusions. Likewise, while the Petitioner expresses general 
disagreement with the Director's conclusions, he does not specify how the Director erred or what 
factors in the decision were erroneous. As an appeal must specifically identify any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision, this omission alone is grounds for 
dismissal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below, we agree 
with the Director's conclusion that the proposed endeavor, while substantially meritorious, does not 
have national importance. 
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We 
therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting 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 
On appeal, the Petitioner continues to rely on the trucking industry, as well as the importance of 
entrepreneurship in general, to assert the national importance of his endeavor. Specifically, the 
Petitioner maintains the broad implications of his endeavor by stating that "entrepreneurship, 
particularly in sectors such as transportation and logistics often goes hand in hand with innovation." 
He further asserts that his "expertise in this field can lead to the development of innovative solutions 
that streamline supply chains, enhance logistical efficiency, and bolster the overall competitiveness of 
U.S. businesses." Yet, the Petitioner does not identify how the services he intends to offer would 
3 
benefit the field more broadly beyond the immediate benefit to his prospective customers. A petitioner 
must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 376. 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. Dhanasar at 893. Similarly, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed 
endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his business and its customers to impact his field more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance, including the logistics and trucking 
industry and the trucking workforce, as asserted. 
We also agree with the Director that the record does not establish the Petitioner's endeavor would 
result in significant economic benefits as contemplated in Dhanasar. Although any basic economic 
activity has the potential to positively impact a local economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
how the economic activity directly resulting from his proposed endeavor would rise to the level of 
national importance. In the business plan, the Petitioner indicated that by the fifth year of operations 
he anticipated generating total sales of $2,300,000 while employing 25 individuals, resulting in an 
annual payroll expense of $1,378,668. Notably, the Petitioner indicated that 16 of his 25 employees 
would be truck drivers, however, the Petitioner did not elaborate on how he intended to recruit 16 
truck drivers in a five-year period given the stated shortage of truck drivers. Similarly, the business 
plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of his financial and employment projections. 2 
But even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were sufficiently explained and 
supported, they do not establish that his company would operate on a scale rising to the level of 
national importance and the Petitioner has not explained how his proposed employment numbers and 
revenue would impact his company's area of intended operations. 
Finally, we have reviewed the provided expert opinion letter, but conclude that the letter provides little 
probative value in establishing the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The 
expert opinion letter provides conclusory statements discussing the importance of the trucking industry 
and the logistics field in general, including the expected growth of the industry, without specifically 
addressing the broader implications directly attributable to the Petitioner's company. When evaluating 
the national importance of a proposed endeavor, the importance of the industry is not sufficient to 
establish national importance, instead we focus on the broader implications of "the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. USCIS may, in 
its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or 
other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter ofCaron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445,460 n.13 (BIA 
2011) ( discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, 
reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much of the content of the expert opinion letter 
lacks relevance to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
2 While not a basis for our decision, we note that the record shows the Petitioner's business has been in operation for more 
than two years prior to the filing of this petition; however, the actual earnings identified in the tax returns are a third of the 
amount projected in the business plan for the corresponding years of operation. Moreover, the record does not include 
evidence of hiring consistent with the stated employment projections. While a petitioner is not required to show that a 
proposed endeavor is more likely than not to ultimately succeed, the Petitioner may want to address this in any future 
filings. 
4 
For the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
B. Eligibility for the Underlying Classification 
While the petition must be dismissed as the Petitioner has not satisfied prong one of the Dhanasar 
framework, upon a de novo review of the record, we question whether it contains sufficient evidence 
to establish that he is eligible for the EB-2 immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional. 
Specifically, the submitted evidence does not establish that the Petitioner obtained at least five years 
of progressive post-baccalaureate experience "in the specialty" as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
First, the record contains inconsistent information regarding the Petitioner's experience between 
January 2005 to March 2017. While the Petitioner has provided a letter stating he was self-employed 
during that time, "engaged in artistic work," and "in product marketing and business development 
activities," he has not provided evidence to corroborate his statements that he was engaged in business 
development activities like "concluding contracts [and] negotiating," nor has he clarified how this 
experience sufficiently relates to owning and operating a trucking company. Moreover, in apparent 
contradiction, the Petitioner indicated on his signed U.S. Department of Labor ETA Form 750B, 
Statement of Qualifications of Alien, that his prior employment was solely as a "carpet weaver" in the 
"artisan" field. 
Nevertheless, as the resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested 
national interest waiver under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework is dispositive of 
this appeal, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested EB-2 
category 3, as well as his asserted eligibility under Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal in removal proceedings where an 
applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief). 
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, and the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 That said, the Petitioner should be prepared to address this issue in any future filings requesting EB-2 immigrant 
classification as an advanced degree professional. 
5