dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Trucking Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WLY 7, 2023 In Re: 27032698 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of trucking transportation business, 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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion . 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
"Advanced degree" means any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of baccalaureate . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) . A U .S. baccalaureate degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered 
the equivalent of a master's degree. Id. 
"Profession" means one of the occupations listed in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 
l 10l(a)(32) , 1 as well as any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent 
is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 2, 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 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposed to work in the United States as an entrepreneur in the field of trucking 
transportation business. He holds a master's degree in business administration from I I 
University I I The Director determined that he is eligible for the EB-2 classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and we agree. The remaining issue on appeal 
is whether the Petitioner is eligible or otherwise merits a waiver of that classification's job offer 
requirement. We conclude that he is not. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 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 Director determined that the Petitioner has not submitted a detailed description of the proposed 
endeavor or documentary evidence demonstrating that the proposed endeavor will have potential 
prospective impact. The Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor is to seek employment as an 
independent business owner specializing in trucking transportation business through his trucking 
company,! IIllinois. The Petitioner further states that I I 
will provide logistics services that involves the pickup of dry-van and reefer loads, package them in 
their truck, and transport the goods from a place of origin to a point of delivery around the United 
States. We find that the Petitioner has provided a detailed description of his proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance because he seeks employment in the trucking industry, owning and operating his own 
trucking company, which will be engaging in interstate transportation and will benefit interstate 
commerce. The Petitioner claims that given the current shift to online orders and the growing need 
for delivery services, the need for services offered by him is in the national interest and of substantial 
merit. The Petitioner asserts that all over the world, there is an ever-increasing need to move items 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
from one place to another and that transporting goods by truck is the most widely used mode of 
transport in Canada and North America because it is safe, reliable, and cost-effective. 
We determine that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit based on his claims that 
his trucking company will be engaging in interstate transportation and will benefit interstate 
commerce, will address the growing need for delivery services, and will transport goods by truck as a 
safe, reliable, and cost-effective mode of transportation for businesses and their consumers. 
The Petitioner contends thatl lwill contribute to the overall U.S. economy by providing 
expert services, generating taxes, and creating new job opportunities. The Petitioner also contends 
that his proposed endeavor will contribute to America's prosperity and opportunity by providing high­
quality trucking services, which will advance the trucking industry. 
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 addition, we 
indicated 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. The Petitioner 
incorporated his trucking company,! lin July 2022 and claims that his company will 
provide logistics services. The Petitioner farther claims that his trucking company will contribute to 
the overall U.S. economy by providing expert services, generating taxes, and creating new job 
opportunities and will contribute to the U.S. prosperity by providing high-quality trucking services, 
which will advance the trucking industry. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's claims, he has not 
provided sufficient evidence to substantiate them. He has not provided sufficient documentary 
evidence that his proposed endeavor to be the owner of his trucking company would impact the 
trucking industry more broadly rather than benefiting his own company and its clients. Without 
sufficient documentary evidence of their broader impact, the Petitioner's proposed employment does 
not meet the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner claims thatl lwill generate tremendous income by putting only dry van 
trucks and refrigerator trucks that are in top shape on the road and ensuring that all their drivers and 
material handlers are trained to be careful, courteous, friendly, and abide by the industry's rules and 
regulations. In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a business plan and 
the articles of incorporation ofi IAs for the economic value that the Petitioner asserts 
his company will offer, the business plan includes projections of $500,000 in total revenue in the first 
year of operation, $1,060,000 in total revenue in the third year of operation, and $1,950,000 in the fifth 
of operation. 
However, the business plan does not provide sufficient details of the basis for these projections or 
adequately explain how this revenue will be realized. Moreover, even if all the projections in the 
3 
business plan were realized, the record lacks sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's 
business will have an impact on the trucking industry or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate 
with national importance. In addition, the business plan indicates that the company is located in 
I I Illinois, but the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the company will be operating 
its business in the underserved business zones, in a rural area, in a high unemployment area, or in an 
economically depressed area or that the endeavor would otherwise have substantial positive economic 
effects. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner also submitted an advisory opinion letter from II I I an associate professor of quantitative management in the college of business at~ 
University, in support of his application for permanent residence in the United States and request for 
a national interest waiver. I I asserts that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
significant national importance and is a matter of national concern, is aimed at furthering the goals of 
the transportation and logistics industry that has considerable potential to employ U.S. workers, and 
presents a solution for environmental and occupational hazards related to the transportation and 
logistics industry. 
However, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that his trucking company will employ a 
significant population of workers in an economically depressed area or that his endeavor would offer 
a particular U.S. region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or 
business activity. The business plan does not explain the company's staffing requirements and does 
not indicate how many jobs will be created by the Petitioner's trucking company. Nor has the 
Petitioner demonstrated that any increase in his company's revenue stands to substantially affect 
economic activity regionally or nationally. Additionally, while.__ ______ ___.claims that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor will provide a solution for environmental and occupational hazards 
related to the transportation and logistics industry, the business plan or the record does not speak to 
how the Petitioner or his trucking company will address those issues. 
Moreover the letter from conflicts with other information in the record. For 
example, .________ ___. states on page 4 of her letter that at the time of the letter in August 
2022, the Petitioner had over six years of experience in the logistics field. However, the Petitioner's 
resume, employment history provided in his Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence 
or Adjust Status, and work experience provided in part B of his ETA 750, Application for Alien 
Employment Certification, all reflect that the Petitioner has less than two years of experience ( a total 
of 19 months) in his field. 3 For another exam:e,I I states on page 14 of her letter 
that the Petitioner worked atl ~ Ifor four years from January 2016 to May 2020. 
However, in his resume, Form I-485, and ETA 750 Part B, the Petitioner indicated that he worked for 
the same company from May 2016 to December 2016 - for less than one year. For another example, 
I I states on page 15 of her letter that the Petitioner presently employs 80 foll-time 
workers, including one general manager, six dispatchers, and 73 drivers. However, the business plan 
does not indicate that the Petitioner's trucking company has any employees, and the claimed 
employment of 80 foll-time workers are not support by the evidence in the record. 
3 In his Form T-485 and Part B of ET A 750, the Petitioner indicated that he worked as an economist at 
I. ~ in Uzbekistan from May 2016 to December 2016 (8 months) and that he worked as a logistics officer 
--;!,,_____ _.,from July 2020 to May 2021 (11 months). In his resume, the Petitioner indicated that he started working 
atl _in May 2020, instead of July 2020. 
D 
4 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). Nevertheless, since USCIS is responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought, where an 
opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, USCIS is not required 
to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. See id. In this case, since the expert opinion letter 
is referencing things not in the record and contains several conflicting statements, we give less weight 
to that evidence and determine that the record lacks sufficient information and evidence to establish 
the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
Furthermore, to support claims regarding the national importance of his proposed endeavor, the 
Petitioner makes a reference to a report of the U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, 
which states that small businesses create two-thirds of net new jobs and drive the U.S. innovation and 
competitiveness. The Petitioner also makes a reference to a study conducted by the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology, which examines the role of immigrants in entrepreneurship and supports that 
immigrants play an increasingly pivotal role in the U.S. economy. The Petitioner asserts that 
entrepreneurs improve the lives of individuals, communities, and the overall economy and that they 
help raise the standard of living for everyone by creating jobs and making products safer, less 
expensive, and more functional. While the report and study referenced by the Petitioner indicate the 
importance of small businesses in the U.S. economy and competitiveness and the important role 
immigrant entrepreneurs play in the U.S. economy, they do not specifically establish that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have broader implications in the U.S. economy or national or 
global implication within the trucking industry. The Petitioner has not otherwise provided sufficient 
information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the 
level of national importance. As such, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. We will reserve 
these issues for future consideration should the need arise. 4 
III. CONCLUSION 
Although the Petitioner has shown that he is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
and that his proposed endeavor to work in the United States as an entrepreneur in the field of trucking 
transportation business has substantial merit, he has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence 
that his proposed endeavor has national importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established 
by a preponderance of the evidence that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6