remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Transportation And Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 09, 2024 In Re: 33401207 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an 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. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 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 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, 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 ofDhanasar, 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: 
• 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is the founder and chief executive officer for a transportation and logistics company, 
_____ The Petitioner started the company in 2021 and asserts it has already created 100 
jobs. The Petitioner established a related online teaching platform for logistics courses and an IT 
platform to connect independent contractors and trucking companies. The Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor is to continue working toward the projected expansion ofl lusing technology 
and sustainability. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The 
Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and rises to the level 
of 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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director indicated the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit as the evidence of 
record demonstrate it is within the field of business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. We concur the Petitioner has demonstrated the substantial merit of his endeavor. 
We do not concur with the Director's determination that the endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance but will not further address this issue as we are remanding this matter. As discussed below, 
the Director's decision contains deficiencies in its analysis with respect to the specific grounds of 
denial. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish he was well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor under prong two of the Dhanasar framework. In the denial decision, the Director stated, 
"[t]he petitioner has not submitted any evidence for the well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor prong and therefore the beneficiary is not well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. " 
In evaluating whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor, we consider 
factors including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related 
or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individual. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director made a factual error in finding the Petitioner did not 
submit any evidence indicating he is well positioned to advance his endeavor. The record supports 
the Petitioner's assertion. As noted by the Petitioner on appeal, the record before the Director 
contained educational records for the Petitioner, a resume, a personal statement, letters of 
recommendation, a business plan for _____ and financial documents for 
These documents include evidence related to the non-exclusive Dhanasar factors for the second prong 
listed above. 
We concur with the Petitioner that the Director's decision did not recognize and analyze evidence in 
the record pertaining to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
We therefore withdraw the Director's determination on this issue and remand to the Director, in part, 
to consider the relevant evidence in the record and reassess whether the Petitioner satisfies prong two. 
C. Whether on Balance a Waiver Is Beneficial 
The Director concluded the Petitioner had not established that, on balance, it would be beneficial to 
the United States to waive the job offer requirement under the third Dhanasar prong. 
This prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United 
States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing this 
analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer 
or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are 
available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish that on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890-91. 
In its denial decision, the Director determined the record "does not demonstrate the widespread 
benefits associated with [the Petitioner's] endeavor working as an [e]ntrepreneur in the field of 
[t]ransportation and [l]ogistics," "does not demonstrate that the [Petitioner's] proposed endeavor may 
lead to potential creation of jobs,' and "does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 
[Petitioner's] proposed endeavor benefits would be beneficial to the United States. The Director did 
not discuss the evidence weighed in balancing these considerations, including the submitted business 
plan, which indicates I lis currently employing individuals in the scope of its business. 
In addition, the Director found the Petitioner's endeavor had substantial merit and national importance 
while simultaneously and inconsistently finding it did not demonstrate widespread benefits or that it 
would be beneficial to the United States. We therefore withdraw the Director's determination on this 
issue and remand to the Director, in part, to analyze the relevant evidence of record related to the third 
prong and reassess whether this prong is satisfied. 
ITT. CONCLUSION 
For the above reasons, we withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for further 
consideration and 
entry of a new decision. 
3 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4