dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Agribusiness

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 12, 2024 In Re: 33564356 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an agribusiness executive, 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 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 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, in part, and 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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: 
• 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 
As an initial matter, though not necessary for our final determination, we must withdraw the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional. As evidence of his advanced 
degree, the Petitioner provided a copy of his diploma from 
________ Brazil showing a Titulo de Bacharel em Administracao. The Petitioner did 
not provide a copy of his transcript related to this degree but indicated on his resume that he attended 
the school from 1995-1998. 
Information from the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers 
(AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE)2 states that: 
The 3-year Titulo de Bacharel/Grau de Bacharel represents attainment of a level of 
education comparable to 3 years of university study in the United States. Credit may 
be awarded on a course-by-course basis. The 4- or 5-year Ti tulo de Bacharel/Grau de 
Bacharel represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's 
degree in the United States. 
The evaluator indicates that the Petitioner has a Bachelor of Business Administration equivalent based 
on academic qualifications alone. However, the evaluator appears to have made this determination 
based on the issuance of a diploma, rather than a combination of examination of the degree and the 
Petitioner's transcript. Absent the transcript of the Petitioner's undergraduate degree demonstrating 
four years of study, he has not established that he received a degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3) (requiring the submission of an official academic record). 
The Petitioner further provided evidence of his continuing education including a Latu Sensu from 
and courses in business management at G- V- F-3. In support of his assertion 
that he has the equivalent of a U.S. master's degree, the Petitioner provided an evaluation of his 
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). 
2 We consider EDGE to be a reliable source of information about foreign credential equivalencies. See Confluence Intern., 
Inc. v. Holder, Civil No. 08-2665 (DSD-JJG), 2009 WL 825793 (D. Minn. Mar. 27, 2009); Tisco Group, Inc. v. Napolitano, 
No. 09-cv-10072, 2010 WL 3464314 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2010); Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. No. 09-13605, 2010 WL 
3325442 (E.D. Mich. Aug.20.2010). See also Viraj, LLCv. Holder, No. 2:12-CV-00127-RWS, 2013 WL 1943431 (N.D. 
Ga. May 18, 2013). See https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/brazil for information regarding the education system in 
Brazil and credential equivalencies (last accessed May 25, 2023). 
3 We use initials to protect the privacy of individuals and organizations not party to the appeal. 
2 
academic credentials. The evaluator concludes that the combination of the Petitioner's bacharel, latu 
sensu diploma, and work experience is "the equivalent of a master's degree in [b]usiness 
[a]dministration." 
EDGE indicates that: 
Professional development and specialization programs are considered lato sensus/ wide 
sense graduate level programs and follow independent legislation. Such programs lead 
toward professional certificates, not graduate degrees. They require 1 to 2 or 3 years of 
study. 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he has a "foreign equivalent degree" as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 4 Because the Petitioner has not provided a copy of his official 
academic record as defined by the regulation or otherwise provided evidence related to the number of 
credit hours and courses completed for his bacharel, he has not established and we cannot conclude 
that he qualifies as an advanced degree professional. In addition, as the Petitioner does not claim (and 
the record does not establish) that he is an individual of exceptional ability, he has not demonstrated 
eligibility for the underlying classification. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he 
qualifies for EB-2 classification. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a consultant in the field of agribusiness 
specializing in seeds and seed technology. He proposes to provide consulting and organizational 
services to various unnamed clients in the agribusiness industry. 
B. Substantial Merit and 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. 
We withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner has established the national importance 
of his proposed endeavor. A review of the record indicates that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is 
not sufficiently defined to establish the potential economic or industry impacts. The Petitioner has 
stated that he intends to operate as a consultant in the agribusiness industry but does not identify a 
specific client for whom he would work or what effect his work would have on that organization. The 
4 Compare 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h )( 4)(iii)(D) ( defining for purposes of a non immigrant visa classification, the "equivalence to 
completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree.") Where combinations of education or experience may 
equate to baccalaureate degrees, the Act and regulations state so explicitly. See section 214(i)(2)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1184(i)(2)(C) (allowing H-lB workers to have "experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such 
[bachelor's] degree"); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) (stating H-lB workers may have "education, specialized 
training, and/or progressively responsible experience that is equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate ... 
degree"). The regulations pertaining to the immigrant classification sought in this matter do not contain similar language. 
3 
Petitioner, in general terms, relies on his professional experience and history of past accomplishments 
to argue that he would have a positive effect on the seed industry in the United States without 
supporting evidence or a clearly defined scope of work within the industry. The Petitioner's expertise 
and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance 
of his proposed work. 
The Petitioner relies on the importance of the seed industry, and more broadly agriculture, rather than 
on his own potential impact on a specific project or projects within the United States. In determining 
national importance, however, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or 
profession in which an individual will work; instead, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id at 889. We further indicated that "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]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. 
On balance the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor would have a significant 
likelihood to employ workers or otherwise effect the agribusiness industry in the United States. He 
states that he would provide a broad range of services to potential customers. His endeavor appears 
to be a single person consulting business that would not employ additional U.S. workers. Instead, the 
Petitioner argues that since his work would affect all farmers and growers that it would have a broad 
effect on the U.S. economy. This determination hinges on an assessment of the broader societal or 
economic implications of the 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. 
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. Similarly, the 
record here does not establish that the Petitioner's nebulous role as a consultant for an unspecified 
company or companies would have an appreciable impact on the economy of the United States or the 
field of agribusiness. 
C. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the 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 individuals. Id. at 890. 
4 
The Petitioner relies upon his experience in the seed industry in Brazil to demonstrate that he is well 
positioned to act as a consultant for U.S. agribusiness organizations. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner was not well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor based, in part, on the lack of seed 
funding, investors, or employment prospects in the United States. On appeal the Petitioner argues that 
seed funding and investment are only two of the criteria that help to establish a person is well 
positioned to advance their endeavor and that the Director did not fully consider the Petitioner's 
extensive experience in his field when reaching their decision. 
In our review of the record, as stated above, the Petitioner has not adequately defined the scope of his 
proposed endeavor or identified a specific employer or company in the United States for which he 
would act as a consultant. Without a clearly defined scope and objective, the Petitioner is unable to 
establish that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Moreover, the Director was 
correct to point out that the Petitioner had not established an interest in his consultation duties that 
would allow his endeavor to rise to the level of national importance. The record does not reflect 
sufficient interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals 
to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed consultancy business. For these 
reasons, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
D. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial 
The third 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. 
Id. at 890-91. 
The Petitioner, however, has not shown that he presents a significant benefit to the United States 
through his proposed endeavor or that his prospective work would serve an urgent national interest. 
While the Petitioner proposes to perform functions that improve the efficiency and collaboration with 
respect to the agribusiness industry in the United States, these factors do not outweigh the benefits 
inherent in the labor certification process. The Petitioner has not demonstrated an urgent national 
interest in his own contributions to achieve his aim, nor has he shown that he offers innovations or 
other contributions that would benefit the nation even if other qualified U.S. workers were available. 
In sum, the evidence does not indicate that the Petitioner offers contributions of such value 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. The Petitioner therefore has not established that he meets the third prong of 
the Dhanasar framework. 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility for EB-2 classification or met the requisite three prongs 
set forth in 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6