dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Trucking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 11, 2024 In Re: 34872886 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a trucking 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner merited a waiver of the job offer and labor certification requirements for 
EB-2 classification. 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. 
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 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 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
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. 
Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner, a citizen and national of Uzbekistan, seeks EB-2 classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability and a waiver of the job offer and labor certification requirements for that 
classification based on the national interest. He states that he intends to work as a business owner in 
the materials transportation industry in the United States. He asserts that his company would offer a 
wide range of services for individuals and organizations that would aide in stimulating both the local 
and national economy. The Director determined that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient 
evidence to support his claim that his proposed endeavor had national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not consider the evidence provided that supports 
his claim of substantial merit and national importance. He states that his proposed endeavor to operate 
a trucking business is of substantial merit because it would stimulate economic activity and provide 
employment to the people he hires and produce ripple effects throughout the national economy. 
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that his company will reach a total of 35 employees in year 
five, with payroll expenses growing from $213,670 in year one to $1.8 million in year five. He also 
projected generating $36,917 in net profit in year one, increasing to $531,445 in 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 business plan identifies several potential future projects based on the 
development of manufacturing facilities not associated with the Petitioner in various parts of the 
United States but provides no evidence that these organizations would be seeking to contract their 
material movement to a third party or that the market rate of those services would equal the projections 
of the Petitioner. In addition, the Petitioner uses information from various market research 
organizations that discuss the trucking industry to support his claim that his endeavor is nationally 
important. We do not dispute the importance of the trucking industry and a steady supply chain to the 
U.S. economy, however, the market data presented encompasses the industry as a whole and not the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 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 376. 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 probative value of the 
business plan. 
Even if we assumed all the projections in the business plan were accurate, the record lacks evidence 
demonstrating that its impact would be nationally important. The Petitioner's business plan contends 
that his business will "create up to 35 direct and 97 indirect jobs" and "contribute up to $58.2 million 
2 
to the U.S. economy." The Petitioner did not provide documentation to support his claim that his 
endeavor will create 97 indirect jobs or that the endeavor will result in substantial economic growth 
on the level of national importance. The determination of national importance hinges on an 
assessment of the broader societal or economic implications of the Petitioner's contributions, requiring 
he demonstrate broader benefits that extend beyond the confines of a local industry. See Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 893. Therefore, while ripple effects may signify positive developments within a 
narrow area, they alone may not suffice to establish the requisite level of national importance. Id. at 
890, 892. Thus, it remains incumbent upon petitioners to present compelling evidence of their 
capacity to significantly benefit the industry or field as a whole, in accordance with the prevailing 
legal standards. 
The Petitioner also argues that the shortage of trucking workers is a drain on the U.S. economy. We 
recognize that the shortage of trucking industry workers places the Petitioner's work in high demand. 
But shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through 
the labor certification process. We further acknowledge the Petitioner's arguments that trucking is 
important for the nation's quality of life, productivity, societal well-being, and the U.S. economy. 
However, 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 specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. 
The record does not establish that creating 35 jobs and generating $531,445 in net profit after 5 years, 
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 evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level 
of national importance. 
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning his eligibility under the third prong of 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 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3