dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 04, 2024 In Re: 34042554 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive/entrepreneur, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record 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 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 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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. 
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
1 Profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 10l(a)(32) 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 of Dhanasar, 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,2 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 
In denying the petition, the Director determined, among other findings, that the Petitioner had not 
established that his proposed endeavor has national importance.3 The Petitioner intends to work as a 
chief executive I entrepreneur by opening, establishing, operating, and growing a non-profit business 
that offers high-quality interstate refrigerated trucking transportation and repair services. On appeal, 
as it specifically relates to the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner renews 
claims that his proposed endeavor is nationally important because it will enhance the revenue of U.S. 
companies, create jobs, and generate tax revenue. He also contends that as his company will be based 
in Illinois, it will help fuel small business' growth in historically underutilized areas. In support of 
these claims, the Petitioner refers on appeal to the industry reports and articles he submitted before the 
Director. He also provides data and information regarding the roles of chief executives, 
entrepreneurship, and small businesses in the United States. 
Upon de novo review of the record and the Petitioner's arguments on appeal, we adopt and affirm the 
Director's decision relating only to prong one of the Dhanasar analysis regarding national importance 
with the comments below. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday 
v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the 
decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted this 
issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of Appeals in holding the 
appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized 
consideration" to the case). 
Here, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor rather than the 
importance of the transportation industry and frozen food sales. In other words, the relevant question 
is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus 
2 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 is discretionary 
in nature). 
3 The Director determined that the Petitioner's endeavor was shown to have substantial merit. The Director additionally 
determined that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
2 
on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. at 889. In determining national importance, "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. at 889. 
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. Such effects need not be national in 
scale but must demonstrate a potential prospective impact that is "substantial" to a particular area, 
region, or industry. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor 
sufficiently extends beyond his future clients to impact the transportation industry more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. We also agree that the Petitioner has not provided 
independent, corroborating evidence to support his claims of substantial economic effects. As the 
Director noted, although the Petitioner claims that his endeavor will generate revenue and create jobs 
in an economically depressed area, he did not support these claims with evidence such as market 
studies or documents regarding possible clients. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
( AAO 2010) ( a petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not elaborate or explain his argument on appeal that the Director 
applied an improper standard of proof in denying his national interest waiver. He does not, for 
example, identify any unusual requirements imposed.4 The Director thoroughly analyzed the material 
submitted with the initial filing and in response to a request for evidence, such as the Petitioner's 
business plan and industry reports and articles, and analyzed the Petitioner's national importance 
claims under the first prong ofDhanasar to evaluate whether he had demonstrated, by a preponderance 
of the evidence, that he meets this requirement. 
Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national 
interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Further analysis of the remaining eligibility requirements, 
therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 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 alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 An appeal must specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
3