dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Trucking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. I0, 2024 In Re: 31200791 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor was of national importance or that it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and labor certification. 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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. 
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 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, 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 
• 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. ADV AN CED DEGREE 
The Petitioner asserts that he qualifies for an advanced degree professional classification by virtue of 
foreign education he claims is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, along with five years of 
progressive experience. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). The Director determined that the Petitioner was a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. After reviewing the record, we disagree with 
the Director's determination. 
As noted above, a petition for an advanced degree professional must include evidence that a petitioner 
possesses a "United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that 
of baccalaureate." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). In order to show that a petitioner holds the qualifying 
degrees, the petition must be accompanied by "[a ]n official academic record showing that the 
[individual] has a United States advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Moreover, any document in a foreign language must be accompanied a certification 
from the translator that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that they are 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The Petitioner claims that he has a specialist diploma in applied electrical engineering. To demonstrate 
this the Petitioner submitted a copy of his original diploma and the accompanying supplement. He 
also provided translations for the documents. However, he did not provide any certificates of 
translation. Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified English language translation of 
the educational documents as required, we accord them no weight as we cannot determine whether 
they support the claim. 
In light of the above, we disagree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has established 
that he is an advanced degree professional in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). Nonetheless, 
because the Petitioner was not on notice of these issues, this does not form the basis of our dismissal. 
The Petitioner must address and resolve this in any further filings. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 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. 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first 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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The appeal brief states that the Petitioner's business,! lwill specialize "in the safe and 
secure transportation of expensive and rare cars, vehicle prototypes, oversized and heavy vehicles, and 
specialized equipment." The evidence provided does not demonstrate that this specific endeavor is of 
national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
noted that "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. 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. To evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to 
evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of his work. 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
The Petitioner argues 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." Yet the brief 
and the record does not explain how the business would impact the overall field more broadly beyond 
its clients on the level of national importance. The brief describes the focus of the business will be the 
transportation of rare and antique cars, specialized equipment, and developmental vehicles. It further 
touts its commitment to "staying at the forefront of industry trends and innovations," and contends 
that the company will engage in environmentally responsible practices and will align with the federal 
regulations on interstate trucking. It avers that because vehicle transportation, the environment, and 
federal regulations are all nationally important, the Petitioner's business is nationally important. 
However, these arguments ignore the requirements we set forth in Dhanasar. It is not the importance 
of the field that determines an endeavor's national importance, but rather how the specific endeavor 
will impact the field on a level commensurate with national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 889. The brief neglects to explain how the business's transportation of vehicles will affect the 
overall trucking field at a nationally important level. 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate national importance either.2 The Petitioner provided 
letters of support from some of his current business partners. Although they all applaud the 
Petitioner's contributions to their business and claim generally that assisting their respective 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
businesses helps the economy, they do not specify how the Petitioner's business will contribute to the 
trucking industry or the economy on a nationally important level. Beyond these letters, the record 
primarily contains documentation regarding the Petitioner's work history in the trucking industry, such 
as training certificates, articles of incorporation for the company, letters of recommendation from past 
business partners, tax documents, truck purchase and registration documents, business contracts, and 
a magazine interview describing his work for a company in Russia. The Petitioner does not explain 
how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past 
accomplishments and experiences, not the specific endeavor's potential impact in the trucking 
industry. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from Dr.I Ia professor in supply chain management 
at I I As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by a 
petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
Nonetheless, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information 
in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert 
opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. 
Here the advisory opinion is of little probative value as Dr. I Ievaluation repeatedly makes 
conclusory statements on national importance without sufficient basis. First, he generally discusses 
the importance of the industry and the need for skilled works. Then Dr.I Iargues that because 
the Petitioner's company will deliver goods faster and improve the trucking industry, American 
businesses will benefit. Nevertheless, he misses a key needed element in this analysis, as he never 
explains how the Petitioner will be faster or better the industry. Nor does he demonstrate how the 
improvements will have a national impact on the field. Next, he summarily concludes that the 
endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects because the transport industry overall 
generates significant revenue. He then resolves that the company is the subject of national initiatives 
because there are regulations on interstate trucking. Finally, he determines that the proposed endeavor 
will benefit individual and societal welfare because the company will transport goods efficiently, 
which makes society better. These sections make presumptive conclusions without analysis and 
evidence to support them. In this lengthy discussion, Dr.I lnever explains how the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor impacts the vehicle transportation field beyond the company's clients or how his 
endeavor would have an economic impact on par with national importance. From the evidence 
provided, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor will have a national impact on 
the trucking industry. 
The Petitioner additionally avers that his business will have "manifold" economic benefits, with 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. 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 have 
national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, though, the business plan does not 
adequately support these projections of job and revenue creation. 
The Petitioner's second business plan anticipates that the Petitioner's company will reach a total of 50 
employees in year five, with payroll expenses growing from $447,500 in year one to $2,973,159 in 
year five. He also projected generating $29,585 in net profit in year one, increasing to $137,624 in 
4 
year five. Nonetheless, the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately 
clarify how these projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the 
business plan's financial projections. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the 
evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably true, where the determination of truth is 
made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 3 76. In evaluating the evidence, truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but 
by its quality. See id. Here, the lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative 
value of the business plan. 
Even if we assumed all the projections in the second business plan were accurate, the record lacks 
evidence demonstrating that its impact would be nationally important. The Petitioner's statement in 
support of the petition contends that his business will have "significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers and [ will have] other powerful positive economic impacts." Yet the Petitioner did not provide 
documentation to support these statements that the company will result in substantial economic growth 
on the level of national importance. The record does 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. The Petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has therefore not provided 
sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor 
rises to the level of national importance. Accordingly, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally 
important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond his clients to affect the region 
or nation more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. He has not shown that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal 
are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments 
concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
(1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 
which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-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). 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
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. 
6