dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Transportation Security

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 07, 2024 In Re: 30968881 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a CEO and entrepreneur in the transportation security field, 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 although the 
Petitioner established his eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, he did 
not demonstrate that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in 
the national interest. 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 l&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. 
If 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 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, 1 grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also 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). 
• 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 Petitioner has a law degree and has worked primarily in the law enforcement, public safety, and 
security field within police and military organizations. He indicates that he will own and operate a 
transportation security company in the United States and serve as the company's CEO. The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
Accordingly, the remaining issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of 
the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
In evaluating the Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver, the Director concluded the record 
did not demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, and that, on balance 
it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement. For the reasons provided below, 
we conclude that the Petitioner did not establish his eligibility for a national interest waiver under the 
Dhanasar framework. 
To determine whether an individual is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor under the 
second prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 890. 
The Petitioner initially submitted evidence of his academic qualifications, training certificates, awards, 
resume, reference letters from former colleagues, and an expert opinion letter which addresses his 
eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. He also provided a business plan for his proposed 
endeavor, ____________ which he described as "already open in the [United 
States] but not yet operating." The Petitioner indicates thatl !"secures and 
patrols transportation, cargo, freight and other related activities" and will seek to provide these services 
to "large companies and chains to provide a recurring service." 
The Petitioner completed his law degree in 2003 and from 2004 until 2016, worked in ___ 
military and police organizations as a senior sergeant, archivist, representative lieutenant, senior 
detective, and senior security specialist. His responsibilities included maintaining and protecting 
government archives, protecting civilians and government facilities, organizing training and seminars, 
preventing and investigating crime, and contributing to the implementation and operation of a victim 
and witness protection program. The Petitioner has been in the United States since 2016 and indicates 
that he has owned and operated a California-based logistics company called since 
2021. He states that his duties for this company include loading and unloading cargo, making on-time 
deliveries, keeping records of deliveries and driving hours, communicating with clients, and 
maintaining and inspecting trucks and equipment. 
2 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that the submitted reference and 
expert opinion letters, training certifications, awards, and resume indicate that most of his work 
experience and past achievements are unrelated to his proposed entrepreneurial endeavor to serve as 
CEO of his own transportation security business. The RFE further noted that he had not demonstrated 
that he has made progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor or shown that he has attracted the 
interest of potential customers, users, investors or other relevant entities or individuals. The Director 
provided an extensive list of the types of evidence the Petitioner could submit to demonstrate that he 
is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, noting that such evidence could include: 
evidence demonstrating his leading or critical role in similar endeavors, evidence that his prior work 
has influenced his field, correspondence from prospective clients or customers, documentation 
reflecting feasible plans for financial support or investment in the new endeavor, copies of contracts 
or agreements related to the endeavor, and evidence of his prior achievements in the field of endeavor, 
among others. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner resubmitted his business plan and resume, provided certificates 
for various security training courses he completed in July 2023, and documented his registration as a 
"guard" with the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services as of July 2023. A cover 
letter accompanying the response stated that the Petitioner was submitting "various statements" from 
his clients and colleagues which "acknowledge his track record of distinguished achievements," 
"excellent customer service," and "significant contributions throughout all stages of his company." 
However, the only additional reference letter submitted was from a lieutenant colonel in the 
armed forces who states that he served alongside the Petitioner as a member of ___ delegation 
to the United Nations' peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone. The author emphasizes the Petitioner's 
"dedication to world peace," his "selfless service" and his "willingness to assist in humanitarian 
efforts," but does not speak to his previous successes in activities related to his proposed endeavor to 
act as the chief executive of a transportation security business. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's response was insufficient to overcome the deficiencies 
raised in the RFE and therefore concluded he had not met his burden to demonstrate that he is well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the record 
demonstrates his "past track record of achievements" and "the concrete interest, and need, of U.S. 
companies in benefiting from his vast expertise in the high-growth industry of business services." He 
further maintains that his business plan, resume, and the previously submitted reference letters 
establish that he has "top level professional experience and acumen as an entrepreneur in the field of 
business," experience working with customers and companies, a track record of success in related 
efforts, and the support needed to carry out his proposed endeavor. 
We note that the Petitioner's reference letters, training certificates, awards, and commendations evidence 
his skills and qualifications in the law enforcement and police protection fields. The Director did not 
question the Petitioner's qualifications, experience or record as a police and military officer in the 
decision denying the petition. Rather, they found that the record was lacking evidence of other indicators 
that he is well positioned to advance his proposed entrepreneurial endeavor in the transportation industry. 
We agree that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated a record of success as a founder and CEO 
of an entrepreneurial enterprise. In his personal statement, the Petitioner explained that, as CEO of 
3 
he will establish business strategies, processes, and objectives, 
supervise key accounts, manage relationships, define the company's scope of work, develop short-
and long-term plans, develop investment, financial and tax strategies, manage the budgeting process, 
develop performance measures, and oversee daily operations and the recruitment and hiring process. 
While the record shows that the Petitioner had some supervisory or leadership responsibilities during 
his time in the military police, the record does not establish that he has previously performed duties 
comparable to those he states he intends to perform in the United States. 
The Petitioner also states that he has already started and is successfully operating a transportation or 
trucking business called ______ but he does not indicate that he performs the above-
described CEO duties for this company; rather he indicates that his duties as the company's owner 
include loading cargo, making deliveries, and performing other operational and administrative 
functions. Further, although the Petitioner documented his incorporation of this California corporation 
in 2021, he has not provided supporting evidence documenting this company's activities or operations. 
Therefore, while his claimed experience with I Imay be relevant to demonstrating his 
track record in a similar endeavor, the record contains insufficient evidence to establish his 
accomplishments with this company. 
We have also considered an expert opinion letter provided by a U.S. university professor. In 
addressing the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar's second prong, the author notes the Petitioner's 
academic qualifications, and summarizes his employment history in military and policing roles. He 
concludes, without further explanation, that "it is clear to see that he is extremely qualified in the field 
of Transportation Security" has "more than fifteen years of experience" in this field and in "business 
structure as a whole," and is "at the top of his field." However, as noted, the Petitioner's employment 
history reflects that most of his experience is unrelated to his proposed entrepreneurial endeavor. 
Therefore, the record does not support the Petitioner's claim that he demonstrated his "top level 
professional experience and acumen as an entrepreneur in the field of business," and "a track record 
of success in related efforts." 
In response to the Director's determination that he did not demonstrate that potential customers and 
investors have expressed interest in the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner points to previously 
submitted media and industry articles and reports as evidence that there is a high demand for the types 
of services he intends to provide through his company. Although the Petitioner has also claimed that 
he was submitting reference letters from clients or customers who rely on his services in the United 
States, this evidence is not in the record, and he does not reference it on appeal. 
Dhanasar's second prong does not merely require evidence that there is a general industry demand 
for the products or services a given petitioner intends to offer in the United States. Rather, it indicates 
that a petitioner may submit evidence of "the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other 
relevant entities or individuals" in their specific endeavor. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
Here, the business plan states that the Petitioner's intended business will primarily target large 
companies with chain operations, but the record does not contain supporting evidence elaborating on 
how the Petitioner, which anticipates a staff of 15 drivers and 15 security guards within five years, 
will secure contracts among large firms or show that such companies have expressed interest in using 
the services of the Petitioner's start-up company for their transportation security needs in the United 
4 
States. As noted, the record lacks evidence of any existing contracts or agreements with clients or 
interest from any potential customers. 
Finally, beyond asserting that he has a well-defined business plan and has "the support needed to carry 
out the proposed endeavor," the Petitioner does not contest or otherwise address the Director's 
conclusion that the record does not contain evidence of his progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor. Although the business plan indicates that _________ was established in 
2022 and would commence operations inl ICalifornia in 2023, the record does not document 
the company's incorporation or physical location. The business plan indicates that this company 
would require an initial investment of $75,000 from the Petitioner but does not document the 
availability of these funds or the actual investment, nor does it detail the company's anticipated start­
up expenses. Further, as noted above, the record lacks the requested evidence of "interest from 
potential customers, investors or other relevant individuals." The record does not establish that the 
Petitioner had taken any concrete steps toward implementing the business plan before filing the 
petition or while it was pending. 
Therefore, for these reasons, the Petitioner has not established he is well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor. 
B. Reserved Issues 
Because the Petitioner has not established his eligibility under the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, we need not address his eligibility under the remaining prongs and hereby reserve them. 
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 ofL-A-C­
, 26 T&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an 
applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. As such, we 
conclude that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5