dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Agribusiness

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 19, 2024 In Re: 33725954 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive officer (CEO) for agribusiness development, seeks employment­
based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the 
job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director ofthe Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
is a professional holding an advanced degree, he did not establish 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 l&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. 
I. LAW 
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 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: 
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 unpublish ed 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 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver 
of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer is warranted. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have 
reviewed and considered each one. 
The Petitioner provided a business plan and described his proposed endeavor as serving as the chief 
executive officer of his company,! Ilocated in California. His endeavor will "offer a 
complete line of courses, training, seminars, and workshops ( online e presential [sic]) focused on 
maximizing efficiency and productivity for Agribusiness companies, especially by exploring new 
methods and technology to this industry, including topics related to the Internet of Things (IoT), and 
finally, providing strategic consultancy, planning, and development of IoT structures to implement 
such new technologies for companies around the US." The Petitioner further explained that he will 
assist with the strategic growth of small and medium-sized businesses. 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and that he 
is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Director determined, however, that the 
Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor is of national importance, and that, on balance, it 
would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates 
previous statements made in the initial petition and in response to the Director's request for evidence. 
The Petitioner again summarizes his prior employment experience and qualifications, and he asserts 
that his past contributions and achievements demonstrate that he has made and continues to make 
contributions of significant impact. The Petitioner reiterates the services that will be provided by his 
company, and the importance of introducing these technological advances to agricultural businesses 
to contribute to the growth of the U.S. economy. The Petitioner also contends that the Director 
misapplied the legal standard and failed to conduct a proper review of the submitted evidence. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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. As it relates to the 
Petitioner's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of his business rather than the 
importance of consulting services, small businesses, immigration, and entrepreneurism. 2 Further, "we 
2 The Petitioner's contentions and submissions of industry articles and reports relates to the substantial merit of the 
proposed endeavor rather than the national importance. 
2 
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. The broader implications of the proposed endeavor, national and/or international, can inform us 
of the proposed endeavor's national importance. That is not to say that the implications are viewed 
solely through a geographical lens. Broader implications can reach beyond a particular proposed 
endeavor's geographical locus and focus. The relevant inquiry is whether the broader implications 
apply beyond just narrowly conferring the proposed endeavor's benefit. And 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. 
Moreover, 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. In 
Dhanasar, we determined 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. We recognize the 
overall value of providing consulting services and running a company; however, the evidence does 
not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific undertaking stands to have an impact beyond 
the organizations and clients he would serve, or that his proposed work would otherwise have broader 
implications for the consultancy and agricultural industries or initiatives. Specifically, the Petitioner 
addresses maximizing profit for small and medium sized farms by identifying possible procedures, 
equipment and solutions to solve problems that benefit a client; however, the record does not establish 
with specific, probative information how the Petitioner's services would have broader implications 
beyond his clients' growth and possible ripple effects to companies working with the client companies. 
The record does not establish the Petitioner has plans to introduce novel methodologies or techniques 
that may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the field or industry, or otherwise 
articulate how he will contribute to research and development of the agricultural industry as a whole. 
Here, the record does not show through supporting documentation how his specific company that 
provides consulting services to the agricultural industry stands to sufficiently extend beyond his 
prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to 
undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. The Petitioner's business plan makes various financial projections 
but has not offered evidence to corroborate the contents. The business plan makes various projections 
that the company will purportedly achieve in five years, such as increasing the sales forecast from the 
negative in year one to $696,190 by year five. In addition, the business plan indicated the company 
will hire 5 employees in year one that will increase to 24 employees by year five. However, the plan 
does not provide sufficient detail of the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these 
sales and staffing targets will be realized. Also, in reviewing the projected monthly wages for the 
forecasted positions located in California, the salaries appear to be below a typical wage for the 
forecasted job titles employed in five years. For example, in year five, the forecasted annual salaries 
for the human resources analyst will be $30,000; and the Information Technology/Technical support 
employee will be $24,000, and the marketing analyst will be $36,000. The Petitioner must support 
his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376. Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
3 
directly attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by 
the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We acknowledge 
the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to the third prong of Dhanasar but, having found that the 
evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as to national importance, we reserve our 
opinion regarding whether the record establishes the remaining Dhanasar prong. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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 the 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4