dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Agribusiness

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 25, 2024 In Re: 31677951 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an agribusiness consultant, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, 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 the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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. Exceptional 
ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, 
or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation that satisfies at 
least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). Meeting at least three 
criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. If a petitioner 
does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality 
shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the field. 
Once 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: 
• 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 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability, because 
he met at least three of the six criteria required for this classification, but did not establish eligibility 
for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set forth below, we 
agree that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver, and we will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with Director's 
conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which aims to provide research, financing, and 
marketing services to agribusinesses, has substantial merit. Yet, the record does not establish that the 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar. 
The Petitioner intends to provide consulting services to U.S. agricultural entrepreneurs in research, 
marketing, and finance through a company he founded. 2 The Petitioner indicates he will work to 
strengthen the agricultural sector in the United States working parallel to public initiatives to revitalize 
the agricultural sector. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the 
requested national interest waiver, as he did not establish eligibility under the Dhanasar three-prong 
framework. With respect to the first prong of Dhanasar, the Director determined that the Petitioner's 
endeavor had substantial merit, however he did not establish his endeavor was of national importance. 
Specifically, the Director concluded the evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work would 
result in benefits extending to the agribusiness field more broadly, in substantial employment 
opportunities, or other substantial positive economic effects commensurate with national importance 
as discussed in Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief; additional education certificates; a market analysis on the 
agricultural industry; recommendation letters; numerous news articles concerning agriculture in the 
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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 The record indicates the Petitioner incorporated this company in Florida and plans to base operates in Illinois. 
2 
United States; reports on the vulnerabilities of the citrus market in the United States; and a business 
plan for his proposed business. 3 He asserts that his proposed endeavor is of national importance 
because: it will have national or global implications; have significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers; have substantial positive economic effects; broadly enhance societal welfare; and impact a 
matter that is the subject of national initiatives. 
Upon de novo review, we agree that the record does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have national importance. In Dhanasar we said that, 
in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting 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. 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. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will 
have a broad impact we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. 
Although the Petitioner's business plan states his intention is to provide research, financing, and 
marketing services to agribusinesses, strengthening the agricultural sector throughout the United 
States and internationally, he has not submitted sufficient detail and documentation to support this 
claim. For instance, the Petitioner's projections for the endeavor are not supported by evidence and 
the plan does not sufficiently detail how the prospective impact of his endeavor will reach beyond his 
clientele. Here, the submitted evidence does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would 
likely impact the agricultural sector more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Similarly, the Petitioner submits evidence of public initiatives aiming to strengthen the U.S. 
agricultural sector and global food supply, asserting that this demonstrates his endeavor is of national 
importance. However, although the strength of the United States agricultural sector is an important 
issue, the Petitioner has not detailed how his specific endeavor, consulting for agribusinesses, would 
have a potential prospective national impact on this issue. Likewise, the Petitioner indicates that, 
although not discussed by the Director, his proposed endeavor should be considered as rising to the 
level of national importance because it would greatly improve societal welfare. For example, the 
Petitioner claims his proposed company intends to advise on sustainable agriculture, use biological 
products to control pests and disease, reduce the use of pesticides, support rural development, support 
food security, and foster economic growth. He claims he plans to bring innovation to the field and 
contribute to the health of Americans, including helping to promote Zumsil, a natural pesticide. 
However, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation and supporting documentation to 
establish that his consulting business would have a national impact in these aspects of the agricultural 
sector and, even with evidence to support these capabilities, the business plan does not show how the 
prospective impact would have such broad effects on the national welfare, beyond his clientele. In 
Dhansar, we explained that the issue was not the national importance of a field, industry, or profession 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. 
In addition, the Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to 
undertake would lead to substantial employment opportunities or other substantial positive economic 
effects commensurate with national importance as discussed in Dhanasar. Specifically, the Petitioner 
has not shown that his company's future staffing levels, 15 employees in 5 years, stands to provide 
substantial economic benefits to the region in which he proposes to operate or in the United States 
generally. Furthermore, although the Petitioner asserts there is the potential for indirect job creation 
resulting in 31 additional jobs in the same timeframe, there is little supporting evidence to show this 
level of employment opportunities would make up a significant population of workers to have a 
substantial economic impact regionally or nationally. Similarly, the Petitioner has also not 
demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake would offer other substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. While the growth forecast for his company indicates that the business 
activity and revenue will grow, it does not demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Accordingly, the evidence submitted on appeal does not overcome the Director's decision that the 
Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. For all the 
reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor 
as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4