dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Trucking And Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 21, 2023 In Re: 28819071 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner 
also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it 
is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that while the Petitioner 
qualifies as an advanced degree professional and his endeavor has substantial merit, the record did not 
establish that his endeavor has national importance, that he is well-positioned to advance that 
endeavor, or that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement. 
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 
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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. Section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Matter of 
Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) states that after EB-2 eligibility has been established, USCIS 
may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
(1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the 
noncitizen is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would 
benefit the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The sole issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established 
that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed 
below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the job offer requirement is warranted. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar test, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
When determining whether a proposed endeavor would have national importance, we examine the 
specific impact of that proposed endeavor. Id. For example, an endeavor may qualify if it has national 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances, or if it has significant potential to have a substantial economic effect, 
especially in an economically depressed area. Id. 
Here, the Petitioner proposes to run a trucking and logistics services company in Florida whose 
services would eventually be available throughout the country. 1 The Director concluded that while 
this endeavor has substantial merit, it is not nationally important. In the denial, the Director noted that 
the evidence did not establish that the endeavor would have national or global implications on the 
transportation field, that it has significant potential to generate substantial positive economic effects, 
or that it would otherwise have an impact beyond its customer base and employees. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that this finding is in error because Dhanasar only names national 
implications and economic effects as examples of how an endeavor can have national impact, and does 
not restrict the definition to those two possibilities. Id. at 889. The brief then explains at length why 
none of the examples of national importance used by the Director, such as employment of U.S. 
workers, are required to establish eligibility, and contends that the denial was therefore in error. This 
contention is without merit. The Petitioner has the evidentiary burden to provide relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence that his endeavor is more likely than not to be nationally important, and to 
establish where that importance lies. Id.; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 7 6 ( describing the 
Petitioner's burden of proof under the "preponderance of the evidence" standard used in these 
proceedings); see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual 
(stating that an endeavor's national impact may rise to the level of national importance if it has 
significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, or to 
contribute to the advancement of a valuable technology or field of study). As correctly noted by the 
Director, the Petitioner has not met that burden here. 
On appeal, as in the underlying case, the Petitioner relies heavily on the importance of the national 
trucking industry to the U.S. economy to establish the importance of his endeavor. However, these 
arguments relate to the merits of the endeavor, not its national importance, which is a separate 
consideration under Dhanasar. The relevant question in determining national importance is not the 
importance of the Petitioner's occupation or industry; instead, "[i]n determining whether the proposed 
1 The Petitioner's title is listed alternatively in the record as chief executive officer and director and administrator. 
2 
endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact." Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 r&N Dec. at 889. It is the Petitioner's burden to establish what impact his endeavor, in and of 
itself: will have. 
The Petitioner's business plan states that by its fifth year of operations, his endeavor will employ 14 
workers, including 10 truck drivers, and have a $734,284 payroll,2 and the supporting evidence 
provides various calculations of his endeavor's estimated tax payments and indirect job creation. 
According to the appellate brief: this previously-provided information "demonstrated that [the 
Petitioner's] company will employ U.S. workers and create a significant impact, especially since 
users has not established a quantity of positive economic impacts nor the number of employees 
necessary to meet the requirement." We disagree. Although Dhanasar did not state a numerical 
threshold for establishing national importance, when relying on an endeavor's potential to have a 
substantial economic effect, the Petitioner must establish that the impact and implications of his 
endeavor's economic activity rise to the level of national importance. Here, he has not established 
that the area where his company will operate is economically depressed or otherwise discussed his 
economic calculations within the context of the Florida or national economy, and so has not established 
that his endeavor will have the kinds of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 889-90. 
We acknowledge the merits of the Petitioner's plan to classify his truck drivers as employees rather 
than contractors and to provide them with sufficient pay, rest periods, and benefits to accomplish their 
jobs safely. However, the Petitioner provides no specific information about how he would cause this 
practice to spread to the larger trucking industry. For example, the expert opinion letter from Professor 
F-J-Q- of1 Istates that "[ d]ue to his track record, r am sure [ the Petitioner] will be asked 
to present at lectures, congresses and seminars," and that "[ u ]ltimately, he will distribute his 
knowledge to other professionals in the field, increasing their skills and increasing the workforce." 
However, Professor F-J-Q- does not provide any further information on this topic, and the Petitioner's 
business plan and supporting materials do not present any plan for such knowledge sharing or specific 
information about it, such as how many people the Petitioner will address, where he will do so, or 
what specific topics he will discuss. 
users may, in its discretion, use expert testimonial statements as advisory opinions. Matter o_fCaron 
Int'!, 19 r&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r 1988). However, we are ultimately responsible for making a 
determination regarding eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. Expert opinion letters, like all evidence 
submitted in support of a petition, are examined for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, and we are not required to accept or 
may give less weight to such letters if they are unsupported by the rest of the record. See id.; Matter 
o_f Chawathe, 25 r&N Dec. at 376. Here, much of the content of the provided expert opinion letters 
lacks relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's 
endeavor. General statements about knowledge sharing are insufficient to establish how the Petitioner 
will impact trucking industry employment practices beyond his own company on a level rising to 
national importance. Matter o_f Chawathe, 25 r&N Dec. at 376. 
2 We note that the Petitioner does not provide a basis or suppmting evidence for the business plan's projections of expenses 
such as rent, utilities, and marketing. 
3 
In the appellate brief, the Petitioner objects to the Director's statement that the evidence did not 
establish "the potential prospective impact of the self-petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would 
have any implications beyond his own company, its customers, clients, [or] employees ... to impact 
the field, industry, or economy more broadly ... at a level commensurate with national importance." 
According to the brief, this held the endeavor to an incorrect standard by stating it must impact a broad 
geographic area in order to have national importance. Id. (stating that the "national importance" 
standard should not overemphasize the geographic breadth of an endeavor). We disagree. The 
Director's terminology does not mention geographic breadth at any point, but correctly points out that 
the evidence does not establish the endeavor's "broader implications." Id. at 890. 3 
Finally, as noted by the Director, the national shortage of truck drivers is not, in and of itself: sufficient 
to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. 4 The Petitioner has not established 
how the Petitioner's creation of 10 new truck driving positions would resolve this shortage or impact 
it on a national level. In sum, the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence 
the national importance of any impact his proposed endeavor would have. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not established his eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address his eligibility under the other two prongs and hereby reserve those issues. 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 I&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). 
The Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 We acknowledge the Petitioner's contention that the Director erred by stating that "USCIS does not find the specific 
endeavor has substantial merit and national importance" at one point in the decision. The Director also briefly mentioned 
a lack of evidence of communications with customers, investors, or other interested parties while discussing national 
importance. Such communications are not a concern when analyzing the first Dhanasar prong, but rather relate to the 
second one, the Petitioner's ability to advance the proposed endeavor. However, these two sentences form a very small 
part of the larger decision, and do not impact the outcome of the case. As such, the claimed errors are, at most, harmless. 
See generally Matter of O-R-E-, 28 T&N Dec. 330,350 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing cases regarding harmless or scrivener's 
errors). 
4 We further note that the Department of Labor directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through the labor certification 
process. Therefore, a shortage of qualified workers in an occupation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish that 
workers in that occupation should receive a waiver of the job offer requirement. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 
885; see also 20 C.F.R. § 656.1. 
4