dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Agriculture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 14, 2025 In Re: 35252092 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 had not 
established eligibility for the requested EB-2 classification and for a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus of the labor certification. 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 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). 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. Id. [If a doctoral degree is customarily required for the specialty, the non-citizen must possess 
a U.S. doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. Id. 
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: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the [ noncitizen] 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; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) 
showing that the [ noncitizen] has at least ten years of full-time experience 
in the occupation for which he or she is being sought; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular 
profession or occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the [ noncitizen] has commanded a salary, or other 
renumeration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to 
the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or 
business organizations. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides, "If the above standards do not readily apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility." 
Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. 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 the requisite degree of expertise 
and will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the 
United States. 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 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 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as an entrepreneur. The Director of the Texas 
Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that she qualified 
as an individual of exceptional ability. 
The Director determined that although the Petitioner met at least three out of six criteria-the 
Petitioner has not established that she possesses a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered as an entrepreneur in the field of agriculture. On appeal, the Petitioner argues 
that the Director erroneously denied the petition. The Petitioner further contends that the Director 
failed to apply the proper standard of proof and instead imposed a novel standard. 
After reviewing the entire record, we adopt and affirm the Director's ultimate determination with the 
added comments below. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday 
v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting the practice of adopting and affirming the decision 
below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); 
Edwards v. US. Att'y Gen., 97 F.4th 725, 734 (11th Cir. 2024) (joining every other U.S. Circuit Court 
of Appeals in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as 
they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
A. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
With respect to the underlying EB-2 classification, the Petitioner does not claim eligibility for 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Instead, she claims to be 
eligible as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. The Petitioner 
identifies herself as an entrepreneur in the field of agriculture with "exceptional ability and a degree 
of expertise significantly encountered in the rural management of soybean production." On appeal, 
the Petitioner contends that she has achieved significant recognition due to her strong professional 
background. The Petitioner explains that her track record of achievements and consistent 
contributions demonstrate that she is a professional of exceptional ability. She also argues that the 
documents she submitted, along with "her fulfillment of various eligibility criteria and her notable 
contributions to agricultural management and sustainability initiatives," establish her as a professional 
with expertise "significantly beyond the ordinary in the agricultural sector." 
In denying the Petition, although the Director recognized that the Petitioner met the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), (B), and (E), the Director concluded that the evidence submitted does not 
establish that the Petitioner has been recognized by peers, governmental entities, or professional or 
business organizations for achievements and significant contributions to her field. Additionally, the 
Director determined that there is insufficient evidence to show that the Petitioner has commanded a 
salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability. While the 
Petitioner provided numerous letters of recommendation praising her and her work, the Director found 
these letters inadequate to demonstrate significant contributions to her field. 
Upon a final merits determination in reviewing the totality of the evidence, the Director determined 
that none of the Petitioner's evidence show that the Petitioner has exceptional ability as an 
entrepreneur in the agriculture field. The Director, therefore, determined that the Petitioner has not 
established that she possesses a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered as 
3 
an entrepreneur in the field of agriculture. We agree. Here, the record as a whole does not establish 
the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. 
Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions, we nonetheless conclude that the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate how (1) her degree; (2) work experience; (3) certifications and license; and (4) 
membership in professional associations sets her apart from other entrepreneurs in the agriculture field 
to show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in her field. For example, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her record compares with other entrepreneurs with the same 
degree, experiences, certifications and licenses, and memberships. The Petitioner does not 
demonstrate that she possesses a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in 
her occupation or otherwise signify exceptional ability as an entrepreneur in the field of agriculture. 
Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that her work has had an impact beyond her clients at a level 
indicative of achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field. Although the 
Petitioner has satisfied at least three of the initial categories of evidence, the record does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has obtained a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
B. National Interest Waiver 
Because the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding the Petitioner's eligibility under 
the Dhanasar prongs and whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 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 
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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner 
has not established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, we conclude that 
she has not established that she 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