dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Agricultural Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10320045 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 25, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a limited liability company focused on retail, import/export, and wholesale agricultural 
products, seeks second preference immigrant classification for the Beneficiary, 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 
classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant 
a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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 of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Beneficiary qualified for classification as an individual of exceptional ability, the Petitioner had not 
established that the Beneficiary is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor or 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. On appeal, the Petitioner mentions additional reasons why it 
believes the Beneficiary qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability, is well positioned to advance 
the proposed endeavor, and that it would be beneficial to the U.S. to waive the requirements for a job 
offer and labor certification. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification (emphasis added), as either an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this 
classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing 
is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver .... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
2 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016).1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion,2 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 3 
11. ANALYSIS 
Initially, it bears mentioning that the Petitioner, a limited liability company, has only one employee, who 
is the Beneficiary. As such, the Beneficiary has initiated this petition as the owner of her own company. 
Though the Director determined the Beneficiary to be an individual of exceptional ability, the Petitioner 
alleges the Director erred in its analysis concerning two of the six criteria within the exceptional ability 
determination. Specifically, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary had a license and professional 
memberships which the Director did not consider. In our de nova review of the exceptional ability 
determination as a whole, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is an 
individual of exceptional ability. 
A Evidentiary Criteria for Exceptional Ability 
As discussed below, a review of the record indicates that the Petitioner does not meet at least three of the 
relevant evidentiary criteria. 
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, 
or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning 
relating to the area of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
While the Petitionersubmitted a foreign bachelor's degree certificate from the Department of Agricultural 
Science atl !university, it is unclear what major, concentration, or field of study the 
Beneficiary engaged in to obtain this degree. The translation of the degree itself contains no indication 
of a major. The Beneficiary's resume indicates that the bachelor's degree is in agricultural sciences, while 
a letter of reference within the record states the Beneficiary's bachelor's degree is in agronomy. 
The record also contains a certificate for a foreign master's degree in Probability Theory and 
Mathematical Statistics. The Beneficiary's resume describes this as a master's degree in Probability 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir.2019)(fincling USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest wa iverto bed iscretionary in nature). 
3 See Dhanasa.r, 261 &N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on thesethreeprongs. 
3 
Statistics and Finance of Commercial Math. According to the support letter submitted in the initial filing, 
the Beneficiary holds a master's degree in "probability statistics and Finance of Commercial." Similar to 
the bachelor' sdegree, the varying degree titles for the Beneficiary' smaster' s degree make it unclear what 
degree the Beneficiary actually holds. 
We note that the Beneficiary herself has provided English translations for these documents, but has not 
complied with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), which requires, in pertinent part, that the 
translator certify that the translation is complete and accurate, and that he or she is competent to 
translate from the foreign language into English. The Beneficiary's resume states that her level of 
English is "intermediate," which does not suggest full competency to translate. 4 
The record contains no academic equ ivalency evaluation for either degree. As the precise degrees the 
Benet iciary ho Ids remains unclear and the translations do not comply with the regulation, the record does 
not credibly establish the Beneficiary's academic record. Ascertaining the precise degree(s) held by the 
Benet iciary is necessary to establish the claimed area of exceptional ability, if any. 5 Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets th is regulatory criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s)from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien 
has at least ten years offull-timeexperience in the occupationforwhich he or she is being 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
In the initial f i I ing, the Petitioner submitted five letters of reference from the following individuals: 
1. I I an engineer who does not state how he knows the Beneficiary; 
2. I I an academic researcher who cooperated with the Beneficiary in an unknown 
capacitywhilethe Beneficiarywas self-employed; 
3. I , I an Apple engineer who cooperated with the Beneficiary in an undefined capacity 
relating to wholesale and retail business and during a time in which the Beneficiary was self­
employed; 
4. I ~n Apple engineer who cooperated with the Beneficiary in an unknown capacity and 
studied with her;6 and 
5.1 I a senior statistician and former General Director of 
I whose leadership the Beneficiary worked unde._r f_ro_m_l-98-5--1-9_9_2 ____ ____. 
Upon examining this evidence, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) which notified the 
Beneficiary that "no evidence has been submitted relating to this criterion" and that the letters appeared 
to be from current or former colleagues, as opposed to current or former employers. In its RFE response, 
the Petitioner submitted the same letters again. Nevertheless, the Director ultimately determined that the 
Benet iciary had satisfied th is criterion. 
4 We note other irregularities and inconsistencies in the record concerning the Beneficiary's translations of other 
documents. This undermines the credibility of the translations as a whole. 
5 The Petitioner's initial support letter states thatthe Beneficiary has exceptional ability in the field economic analysis and 
business. 
6 According to government records. she also appears to be the Beneficiary's daughter. 
4 
However, in examining these letters on appeal, we observe that none of the letters establishes that the 
Beneficiary's experience was full-time. Further, only the authorl I appears to know the 
Benet iciary in an employer-related capacity, as that author claimed that the Beneficiary worked "under 
my leadership" from 1985-1992. The author does not clearly identify the leadership position held during 
the time in which the Beneficiary worked under it, nor can we ascertain whether such leadership signifies 
that the author was the Beneficiary's employer during that time. Even if we consider the author to be a 
former employer, the time in which the author could conceivably be construed as the Beneficiaty's 
employer wou Id be seven years only, which falls short of the criterion's requirement of ten years. The 
remainder of the letter lists the Beneficiaty 's work history but does not establish the author's familiarity 
with the Beneficiary as her current or former employer. Considering the letters individually and 
collectively, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that it meets this regulatory criterion. 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) 
The Director determined that no evidence had been submitted relating to this criterion. On~I, the 
Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's previous license to operate a retail souvenir shop inl__J Italy 
satisfies this requirement and that although the title of the document does not say "license," the document 
effectively operated as the Beneficiary's business license. While the document may be a license to own 
and operate a retail shop and issued by the Chamber of Commerce irl I it is not a professional license 
that permits entry into a particular profession or occupation. Simply calling something a license does not 
satisfy the requirements of this criterion. By way of example, a driver's license is called a "license," but 
would not satisfy this criterion. Similarly, the Beneficiaiy's license registering her LLC in Nevada is 
called a "business license," but it is not a professional I icense satisfying th is criterion. 
The differences between a license to operate a shop and a professional license for the purposes of 
exceptional ability are numerous. Primarily, the actions required by the Beneficiary to obtain the license 
to operate a retail souvenir shop appear to be based on mere registration, attestation, and payment of a fee 
to the issuing authority, whereas a license to practice a profession normally entails a level of education, 
expertise, or the attainment of a particular professional competence benchmark. The information in the 
record does not indicate that the Beneficiary had to comply with a certain level of professional 
competence in order to be issued a license to operate her retail shop. Rather, the licensureappears to have 
been perfunctory and issued upon proper application and fee. With or without a U.S. baccalaureate 
degree or its foreign equivalent, an individual could apply for and be issued a business license to 
operate a retail shop. Additionally, the license to operate the retail shop ends when the retail shop closes, 
as indicated in the record, which differentiates it from a professional license that does not necessarily 
term in ate simply because the holder of the li~hanges jobs or businesses close. Finally, the license 
to operate a retail shop inl lis limited tol__Jalone and it does not imply that the Beneficiary may 
use the license beyond the confines of the local municipality. By contrast, a license that establishes a 
particular competency in a profession, such as in law, medicine, or engineering, for example, may cut 
across geographical regions or provide a basis for other authorities to recognize and issue equivalent 
licenses based on previously-established professional competence. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established that it meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
5 
The Petitioner has not submitted evidence for consideration under this criterion. The record includes 
a statement from the Beneficiary that she "commanded a remuneration ... a great award of property," 
wh i I~ I states that the Benet iciary received "a super high salary reward." These statements 
are vague and uncorroborated by evidence establishing an actual salary. Therefore, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
The Petitioner alleges that the Director erred in not recognizing the Beneficiary's membership as a senior 
statistician within tha I Statistical Senior Title Evaluation Committee. This committee 
has also been translated as the 'I lstatisticalAssociations"in other parts of the record. The 
Petitioner does not acknowledge or explain the difference. Other documentation within the record states 
that the Beneficiary "was rated as senior technical title byl !Personnel Bureau andl I Bureau of 
Statistics as Senior Statistician" and that "[ a ]11 Senior Statisticians are members of the Statistical 
Associations." Even if the varying titles and translations for th is association/committee were accepted as 
credible, we would still need to take note of the fact that the record states that the Beneficiary "used to be 
a membership [sic] of the I I Statistical Associations" (italics added). The Petitioner does 
not state when the Beneficiary stopped being a member and based on the evidence of record, it cannot be 
determined whether the Beneficiary was a member of this association/committee at the time of filing the 
petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits evidence that the Beneficiary is a new member of two additional 
associations. However, we cannot consider any membershipsgained after the filing date of the petition 
as evidence to establish the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. We acknowledge the 
Petitioner's statements on appeal that the Beneficiary has joined the events of Google, Amazon, and 
We Work "on Meetup" and has been a member of these associations since 2015, however little 
evidence was submitted to corroborate these claims. On appeal, the Petitioner submits screenshot 
printouts suggesting the Beneficiary went to two event "meetups"ho sted by Google Developer Group, 
events which appear to have occurred after the petition filing. Although the printouts suggest the 
Beneficiary attended the event, neither establishes that the Beneficiary is a Google Developer Group 
member, and even if a member, the Petitioner submitted no evidence to show how this group relates 
to the claimed area of exceptional ability. Also on appeal, the Petitioner submits screenshots of an 
account the Beneficiary registered with the California Association of Standards and Agricultural 
Professions (CASAP), but the printout does not include any indication of when the account was created 
or whether the account signifies actual membership in CASAP. Finally, a screenshot of an on line 
membership in the International Association for Agricultural Sustainability states that the 
Beneficiary's membership is in "draft" status, does not indicate when the Beneficiary's status became 
"draft," or explain what "draft" status means. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion based upon the letters of reference 
previously submitted. However, upon de nova review, we conclude that the deficiencies in the reference 
6 
letters, including a lack of detail and insufficient corroborating evidence, do not a sup po rt a fin ding that 
the Petitioner established eligibility under this criterion. As noted above, the majority of the letters do not 
clearly describe how the authors know the Beneficiary. Moreover, the Director observed that the letters 
off er general praise but do not contain specific examples as to how the Beneficiary's work has influenced 
the field. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in 
the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. U.S. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) 
(holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters so as to determine whether they support the 
petitioner's eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that 
expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
Indeed, the authors reference the Beneficiary's talent and character but do not provide specific examples 
of achievement orcontribution beyond listing the Beneficiaiy'semploymenthistory. Although! I 
stated that the Beneficiary's scientific research made significant contributions to the agricultural 
~tion of the county, the record contains little evidence to corroborate such a claim.7 Similarly □ 
L__Jand the Petitioner claim that the Benet iciary wrote a large number of agricultural economic 
analysis reports and articles which were cited by major newspapers and government entities. The record 
contains little evidence demonstrating the Beneficiary's publications, that they have garnered citations, 
or how her work has otherwise affected the field as a whole. Much of the Beneficiary's claimed 
achievement occurred in the 1980s and early 1990s. The letters and other documentation within the 
record do not suggest achievements or contributions to this industry or field more recently than 1992. 
On appeal, the Petitioner alleges that the Director mischaracterized the Beneficiary's award as a local 
I I award when it was in fact a prestigious national award, which won first place under the 
National Statistics Bureau Rural Sampling Survey Corps and second place under the National Statistical 
System.8 It appears that the Beneficiary won the award for her research and writing of an article, though 
it is notclearfromthe recordwhatworkwent into the research and writing or why it garnered recognition. 
The Petitioner provided scant corroborating details concerning the award. Moreover, we note several 
discrepancies in the translation of the award that undermine its credibility. First, the award itself includes 
a date of "l 987"but some translations and references made to the award indicate that the Beneficiary 
received the award in 1988. The translation submitted within the initial filing states that in 1987 the 
Beneficiary was awarded an "Honor Certification" and that it was for work performed by a team, while 
the Benet iciatV wal the writer. The translation also contains reference to both the National Statistics 
Bureau and Rural Sampling Survey Corps as the issuing bodies of the award. The translation 
provided on appeal characterizesthe award as given irC]1988 and that it was "First Prize." The name 
of the issuing entity changes to "National Statistics Bureau Rural Sampling Survey Corps," which appears 
to combine the National Statistics Bureau and thel I Rural Sampling Survey Corps into one entity. 
As a whole, the record contains inconsistent information regarding the type of award, what work it was 
for, when it was awarded, and what entity issued it. We acknowledge the Petitioner's statements that 
20,000 people worked at the National Statistics Bureau Rural Sampling Survey Corps at the time of the 
award, however, this figure does not relate how many individuals competed for the award or how 
7 The reference to "county" also implies a local influence that is not national in scope, let alone informative of influence 
outside of the Beneficiary's home country. 
8 The record contains only one award. It is not apparentfrom the evidence that the Beneficiarywon two awards. 
7 
prestigious it was. The Petitioner presented little evidence showing that this award is recognized beyond 
the presenting institution or indicative of influence on the field as a whole. As the Director noted, the 
award does not state any specific details about what made the Beneficiary's contribution award-worthy 
or how she played a leading, critical, or indispensable role. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied 
this criterion. 
Summary 
The record does not support the Director's finding that the Petitioner met at least three of the six regulatory 
criteria for exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The Petitioner has not established the 
Beneficiary's eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act As 
previously outlined, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary is either an advanced degree 
professional or possesses exceptional ability before we reach the question of the national interest 
waiver. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary is an advanced degree professional, and as 
previously discussed, has not shown that the Beneficiary meets regulatory criteria for classification as 
an individual of exceptional ability. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification, the issue of 
the national interest waiver is moot.9 The waiver is available onlyto foreign workers who othetwise 
qualifyfor classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. However, because the Director addressed 
the matter and the Petitioner's appeal alleges en-or in the Director's decision, we briefly discuss the 
evidence and arguments submitted on appeal .10 
The Petitioner explains that the Beneficiary's award, herl I business I icense valid from 2004-2015, 
her former membership in a statisticians' association, along with new membership in additional 
organizations, all serve as evidence that the Beneficiary is well positioned to advan
1
ce the ]roposed 
endeavor. For the reasons discussed above, the license to operate a retail shop in and the 
Beneficiary's memberships are not sufficient evidence in this matter.11 
The Petitioner alleges that the Director mischaracterized the Beneficiary's award as a provincial award 
rather than a national award, which reduced the Beneficiaiy's impact in the field to a local level. While 
we acknowledge that the award is national in scope, the Petitioner presented little evidence showing that 
this award is recognized beyond the presenting institution or indicative of influence on the field as a 
whole. Even if the variations in translations of the award had not diminished its credibility, the Director 
already noted that the award did not state any specific details about what made the Beneficiary's 
9 Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the arguments regarding the endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessaiy 
to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I &N Dec. 516,526 n.7 {BIA2015) (declining to reach alternative 
issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
10 After the Petitioner filed th is appeal, we received an additional letter of reference froml I I tcontains the 
reasons whyl loersonally believes the Petitioner's pro posed endeavor is of national importance. The letter does 
not explain ho"1 I knows the Beneficiary or ~uch he knows a boutthe Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
11 The Beneficiary's license to operate a retail shop irL__Jendedin 2015, four years priorto filing the petition. For this 
additional reason, this license has no evidentiary bearing on the proposed endeavor. 
8 
contribution award-worthy or howsheplayeda leading, critical, or indispensable role. Finally, this award 
was given in 1987 or 1988, and the Petitioner offers little evidence of sustained or recent contributions to 
the field such that it would suggest furtherance of the proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a business plan to address the evidentiary discrepancies described in 
the Director's decision, namely concerning the progress towards the proposed endeavor as well as the 
interest that potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals have in the 
endeavor. In review, we conclude that the business plan largely repeats information previously 
provided. Regarding the limited new information in the plan, the content is theoretical and vague, 
containing descriptions of ideas with little apparentthoughtasto how the ideas might be accomplished. 
For instance, the plan discusses the recruitment of managers and staff, but does not describe where the 
revenue comes from to pay these new recruits. Parts of the plan include utilizing wasteland for crops, 
but the plan does not reference where the land is, how it will be purchased or leased, or the 
infrastructure required to use it. The plan references opening organic plant shops and participating in 
weekend farmer's markets but contains no information on where specifically the shops and markets 
will be, how the Petitioner intends to buy or build them, or whatthe expected revenuewill be for them. 
Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake the numerous 
proposed projects, the Petitioner has not shown that its plan forfutureactivities rendersthe Beneficiary 
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Although the Beneficiary has obtained a driver's 
license, insurance, and AAA membership, little else has been accomplished. The plan lists some of 
the Petitioner's tasks towards the proposed endeavor, most of which are "in progress," and it does not 
include explanations of how much or what progress has been made in those areas. When viewed in 
the totality, the business plan does not address the evidentiary concerns outlined in the Director's 
decision. 
The Petitioner also asserts that it would be beneficial to waive the job offer and labor certification 
requirements. The Petitioner states that the proposed endeavor will enrich the community by creating 
jobs, as well as offering agricultural products that are healthier for people and the environment, 
however, the business plan did not sufficiently document the Beneficiary's prospective contributions 
in this area. Although the Petitioner claims that these contributions are urgent and the labor 
certification would be impracticable, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why this is so. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not address how the Beneficiary's self-employment would affect U.S. 
workers. The Petitioner claims that the endeavor will create 1,600+ jobs but has not substantiated this 
claim with sufficient specific information. In the totality, the Petitioner has not adequately addressed 
the deficiencies outlined in the Director's decision concerning the benefits of waiving the job offer 
and labor certification requirements. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary qualifies for classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. In addition, the Petitioner has not shown that 
the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, nor that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement would be in the national interest of the United States. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter of Otiende, 26 l&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
9 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10