dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Trucking Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 19, 2024 In Re: 32385884 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a manager in the trucking industry, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner qualified for 
EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but did not establish 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. The Director dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider. 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 qualify for 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 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 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 matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• 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 his business plan submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner states 
he will own and serve as chief executive officer of a company providing consultancy and training 
services to businesses operating in the trucking industry. The Petitioner states his company will be 
located inl ICalifornia and provide sales management, marketing strategies, and process 
enhancement to small, medium, large, and multinational companies in the United States. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that he holds the equivalent of a United States bachelor's degree in 
business administration and has over five years of progressive experience in his specialty. The 
Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. We agree. The only issue on appeal is whether he qualifies for and 
merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. We agree. 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Id. at 889. This consideration may include whether the 
proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically 
depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global 
implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 
889-90. The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish that his company's services would 
sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact his field, industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly 
at a level commensurate with national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts his proposed endeavor has national importance because he will 
provide consulting and training services to businesses in the trucking industry, which is a major 
contributor to the United States economy. The Petitioner states trucks move approximately 72 percent 
of the nation's cargo by weight and the trucking industry plays a vital role in maintaining the supply 
chain for every major industry. The Petitioner submitted an industry report on truck dealers, a market 
analysis report for pickup trucks, and articles discussing how the trucking industry affects the U.S. 
economy, trucking industry trends, statistics, and outlook for 2023, trucking economics and industry 
2 
data, and must-know trucking industry stat1st1cs. While these reports and articles attest to the 
importance of the trucking industry in the United States, they do not establish the national importance 
of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Our assessment of national importance does not focus 
on the importance of a field or industry in general, rather it "focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, none of the articles mention the Petitioner, 
or otherwise address the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also claims a letter from H-D-P-2, Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship and 
Innovation at the demonstrates the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. In his letter, H-D-P- expresses his opinion that the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver. H-D-P- discusses the California automotive market's need for consulting services, challenges 
to the automotive production supply chain, the Biden Administration's Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal 
designed to address supply chain issues, and President Biden's speech on the Trucking Action Plan. 
H-D-P- states supply chain issues and challenges affecting the trucking industry are matters of national 
importance, but he does not articulate how the Petitioner's company's work would extend beyond 
individual businesses to impact the supply chain and the trucking industry more broadly on a level 
commensurate with national importance. Cf id. at 892 (stating Dhanasar submitted probative expert 
letters describing the importance of his specific research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests). 
The Petitioner and H-D-P- further assert the Petitioner's business plan shows his proposed endeavor 
will contribute to the United States economy. The Petitioner's business plan projects his company 
will employ five people the first year and 13 people by the fifth year. The business plan estimates the 
company will pay $44,400 in total taxes in the first year, increasing to total tax payments of $132,730 
in the fifth year. The business plan also estimates a profit of $28,350 in the first year, increasing to 
$100,460 in the fifth year. The business plan does not state how these financial forecasts were 
calculated and the Petitioner and H-D-P- do not provide data on how the company's staffing level and 
projected profits compare to other consulting firms in the trucking industry. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the estimated employment of 5 to 13 people shows a significant potential to employ 
United States workers or that his company will operate in an economically depressed area. The 
Petitioner also has not established that his company's projected tax payments and profits would have 
a substantial positive economic effect indicative of national importance. See id. at 890 ( discussing 
significant potential to employ United States workers and other substantial positive economic effects 
as indicative of national importance). 
The Petitioner also claims his company has national importance because it will take a comprehensive 
approach to addressing the needs of the U.S. trucking industry through sales process optimization, 
market analysis, customer relationship management, and extensive training programs. The Petitioner 
does not indicate that he developed any of these approaches or that his company would implement 
approaches with national or even global implications for the trucking industry. See id. at 889 
( discussing improved manufacturing processes or medical advances as examples of national or even 
global implications within a particular field). 
The Petitioner also has not established that his company's training programs would extend beyond 
individual trainees to impact the trucking industry more broadly. See id. at 889 ( explaining "we look 
2 We use initials to protect the privacy of the referenced individual. 
3 
for broader implications"). 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. 
Id. at 893. Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
extend beyond his clientele to impact the trucking industry more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. 
The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic 
effects, has national or even global implications within his field, or has other broad implications 
indicating national importance. 
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor and he 
does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, he has not demonstrated that he 
is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4