dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Agricultural Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 21, 2024 InRe : 31474354 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an agricultural engineer, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner qualified for 
EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but 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 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 
If 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. 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an agricultural engineer who holds a doctoral degree in economic agro-industrial 
problems from ____________ in Mexico. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
We agree. The only issue on appeal is whether she qualifies for and merits a waiver of the job offer 
requirement in the national interest. 
A. Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner initially submitted a personal plan describing her proposed endeavor as "strengthening 
soft skills and social capital based on biblical values." The Petitioner identified her "potential target 
groups" as "Latin Immigrants of Christian Churches" and identified potential partners as evangelical 
churches, theological seminaries, small rural or suburban producer associations, and evangelical 
Christian high schools. The Petitioner proposed to work in "rural areas and peri-urban areas of States 
with greater influx of Latinos." The Petitioner stated she would conduct twelve training workshops 
for trainers to replicate the "Values Strengthening Strategy aimed at strengthening soft skills and social 
capital." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted a new personal plan entitled 
"institutionalization of ethical values in the agricultural field of the United States." The Petitioner 
identified her "potential target groups" as farmers, ranchers, agronomy and natural resource 
management students, agronomists, international cooperation agencies, and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA). She identified potential partners including agricultural associations, colleges, 
entrepreneurs, engineers, and non-governmental organization (NGO) technical staff. The Petitioner 
proposed to work in "states with agricultural production." The Petitioner stated she would propose an 
academic strategy to agricultural schools, implement an awareness strategy, improve the profitability 
of crops, socialize her project with USDA, NGOs, and international cooperation agencies, promote 
student theses on ethical values in agriculture regenerative production, and create jobs for agricultural 
engineers committed to ethical responsibility. 
The Director determined the Petitioner's new proposal was a material change to her petition. We 
agree. Subsequent material changes to a petition cannot be considered. See Matter ofIzwnmi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (holding "a petitioner may not make material changes to a 
petition that has already been filed in an effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to 
Service requirements"). The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971) (providing that 
"Congress did not intend that a petition that was properly denied because the beneficiary was not at 
that time qualified be subsequently approved at a future date when the beneficiary may become 
qualified under a new set of facts"). 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims her new proposal is not a change, but a complement to her original 
plan because the foundation of both projects is ethical values. The Petitioner does not acknowledge 
that the target groups, potential partners, work areas, and methods of her two proposals are different. 
The Petitioner concedes that she submitted the second proposal "to respond to the request to attach 
2 
more evidence." The Petitioner's second personal plan contains material changes and cannot be 
considered in an assessment of her eligibility for a national interest waiver. See Matter ofIzwnmi, 22 
I&N Dec. at 175. Consequently, we address only the Petitioner's first proposed endeavor in our 
assessment of her eligibility. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. We agree. 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed 
endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed 
area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within 
the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. The Director 
determined the Petitioner did not establish the potential prospective impact of her endeavor, that it 
would have broader implications in her field, or that it would have substantial positive economic 
effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states "it is not possible" for her "to quantify the economic impact" of her 
proposed endeavor but claims it will nonetheless have economic effects because strengthening soft 
skills "complements DO L's work that promotes the well-being of workers, job seekers and retirees." 
Without independent evidence to support her claim, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her 
specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, particularly in an 
economically depressed area, or has other substantial positive economic effects that Dhanasar 
recognized as indicating national importance. See id. at 890. 
The Petitioner asserts her proposed endeavor has national importance because "in the United States 
there is a marked and progressive loss of values" and a "need for an ethical approach." The Petitioner 
initially submitted articles and excerpts of articles concerning soft skills, child well-being, teen girls 
experiencing increased sadness and violence, values and ethics for the twenty-first century, depressive 
symptoms among recent Latinx immigrants in South Florida, social capital and economic crisis in the 
United States, data of Hispanic and Latino households, the 2023 fiscal year U.S. government budget, 
and value crisis. The determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of the 
field in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 
Id. at 889. Here, none of the articles mention the Petitioner or her plan, or otherwise address the 
potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner initially submitted letters from Dr. and Dr.
I Dr. I I praised the Petitioner's contributions to the measurement of social capital 
and described her as "a highly competent and dedicated professional in her field of study." Dr.I 
stated the Petitioner "stood out for her expertise in the exercise of technical professional incorporating 
3 
I 
I 
social issues, especially related to social capital, levels of relationship and values," and referenced her 
work with rubber, citrus, quinoa, and other producers. Although the letters may help establish that the 
Petitioner is well positioned to advance her endeavor, Dr. I I and Dr.I ldid not discuss the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its prospective impact. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional letters from Dr. ______________ 
I and Rev. I I Rev. praises the Petitioner's work as a translator for his 
church's Latinx members and states she has become a member of a Canadian and U.S. organization 
of churches with which she looks forward to consulting on work with Latinx residents of both 
countries. Mr. I I Eastern U.S. Regional Mission Leader of states he 
seeks to collaborate with the Petitioner to develop projects promoting the well-being of the community 
which "have the potential to enfold local leaders and hire volunteer staff." Ms. I I praises the 
Petitioner's volunteer work with her organization, I l and states she "would be an asset 
to anyone in need, but in particular to those who [are] in the Latino community." Dr. I I President 
ofl _ states he considers the Petitioner's project to be "relevant and valuable for 
the American reality, which it is increasingly being affected by the loss of moral values" and 
recommends the Petitioner as "a valuable professional to [the] United States." Although theypraise 
her contributions to some of their organizations, Mr. Rev. Dr.I I and Ms. 
do not specifically address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or any broader implications of the 
Petitioner's work in her field. Cf id. at 892 (stating Dhanasar submitted probative expert letters 
describing the importance of his specific research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests). 
The Petitioner states the goal of her project is for 70,000 Evangelical Christians to receive awareness 
of the loss of values and improve their soft skills and social capital. The Petitioner projects that these 
people could each share their skills with at least one other person so that 140,000 people would be 
reached "from different states and that constitutes the national importance of this project." The 
Petitioner does not specify how she would reach 70,000 people initially through her proposed twelve 
training workshops or other means, or how those individuals would transmit their skills to others. 
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. Here, the 
Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond her 
individual trainees to impact the field of soft skills and social capital more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
C. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
The Petitioner has not established 
the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor and she 
does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of her eligibility under the 
second and third prongs 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 of which is 
unnecessary to the results they reach"); 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). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, she has not demonstrated that 
she is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5