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 ofproof 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v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature).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 ofthose services would equal the projections of the Petitioner.Plan or projections not corroborated 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.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's 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 ofChawathe, 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 p. 3 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 ofthe broader societal or economic implications ofthe 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.Job creation or economic claims unsupported 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 ofwhich is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 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 is otherwise ineligible).
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.