dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Agriculture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 12, 2025 In Re: 37090786 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of agriculture, 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. 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 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; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) 
showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the 
occupation for which he or he is being sought; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular 
profession or occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the alien 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. 
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 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 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as an entrepreneur providing advisory, 
consultancy, and agricultural management training services to coffee-producing companies and 
farmers. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
did not establish that he qualified as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director determined that 
although the Petitioner met three out of six criteria, he did not establish that he possesses a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered as a rural property manager or entrepreneur 
in the coffee industry. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director failed to acknowledge he met 
two additional criteria and erroneously denied the petition. He further contends that his proposed 
endeavor has national importance and satisfies the requirements set forth in Matter ofDhanasar. 
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 
After reviewing the entire record, we adopt and affirm the Director's 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). 
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, he claims to be 
eligible as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. The Petitioner 
identifies himself as an entrepreneur with vast experience in rural management and precision 
agriculture technology, focusing on coffee production. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he met a total of five criteria to establish eligibility as an 
individual of exceptional ability and refers to the submitted documentation. The Petitioner explains 
that his academic background, professional experience, income history, membership in professional 
associations, and recognition demonstrate that he is an individual of exceptional ability. He argues 
that the record shows he contributed to the implementation of advanced precision farming techniques 
and has been recognized for the development of innovative agricultural projects to increase 
production, reduce operating costs, and promote sustainable practices. 
In denying the petition, though 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 the Petitioner has attained a level of expertise significantly above others who work as rural 
property managers or entrepreneurs in the coffee industry. Additionally, the Director determined that 
there is insufficient evidence to show the Petitioner has commanded a salary, or other remuneration 
for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability. While the Petitioner provided letters of 
recommendation praising him and his work and an article referencing his accomplishments as a ranch 
manager, the Director found this evidence inadequate to demonstrate significant contributions to his 
field. Upon a final merits determination in reviewing the totality of the evidence, the Director 
determined that the record did not show the Petitioner possesses a degree of expertise significantly 
above that ordinarily encountered as a rural property manager or entrepreneur in the coffee industry, 
and therefore the Petitioner did not establish he meets the exceptional ability eligibility requirements. 
Upon review, the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's determination and has not established his 
eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions, 
the record does not demonstrate how his academic record, work experience, salary, membership in 
professional associations, and recognition sets him apart from other rural property managers or 
entrepreneurs in the coffee industry to show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in his field. The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate how his record compares with 
others with the same degree, experiences, salary, and memberships. He did not establish that his work 
has had an impact at a level indicative of achievements and significant contributions to the industry or 
field, or that he possesses a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his 
occupation or otherwise signify exceptional ability as a rural property manager, or as an entrepreneur 
3 
in the coffee industry or agriculture field in general. Although the Petitioner has satisfied at least three 
of the initial categories of evidence, the record does not demonstrate that he 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). 
Because the petition cannot be approved without an underlying determination that the Petitioner 
qualifies for EB-2 classification, we will reserve discussion of the Petitioner's national interest waiver 
claim under the Dhanasar framework. 2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessmy to the results they reach); see also Matter ofL-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