dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Agronomy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 08, 2024 In Re: 29137211 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an agronomist engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the alternative, as an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks anational interest waiver 
of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 
203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, 
when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that although 
the Petitioner established eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, the record did not demonstrate her eligibility for the requested national interest 
waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter a/Chri sta 's , Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree.1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish eligibility for 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 USCIS may, as matter of discretion2, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The record reflects that determination.3 
The remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver 
of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The 
Director found that while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, he 
did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first prong 
of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The Director also found that although the Petitioner 
established that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second 
prong, he did not 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 under Dhanasar ·s third prong. Upon de 
novo review, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a 
waiver of the labor certification would be in the national interest.4 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in arange of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner intends to work in the United States as an agronomist engineer. In his personal 
statement, the Petitioner describes his proposed endeavor, "I intend to perform as an Agronomist 
Engineer and provide my specialized services working in agribusiness companies, farms, and food 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 To demonstrate he is an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner submitted his diploma for a title of agronomist 
engineer from~--------~in Brazil, his academic transcripts, an academic evaluation, and letters from 
his previous employers. The record demonstrates that he holds the foreign equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in 
agronomist engineering and at least five years of progressive experience in his specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
4 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
industries, focusing on the turnaround, recovery, and leverage of operations, optImIzmg, and 
increasing productivity performance, and strategic planning to impact the agricultural field of the 
[United States]." (emphasis omitted). The Petitioner indicates that he intends to work with multiple 
businesses simultaneously, instead of working for one employer. He would work in partnership with 
small and large-sized public and private businesses to provide his professional expertise to solve 
agricultural problems, increase energy efficiency, and protect the environment.5 
The personal statement indicates that his proposed endeavor would help develop regional agricultural 
projects that generate jobs; implement strategies ensuring food safety and quality; maximize animal 
and crop production by performing soil analysis and modifying environmental factors; implement crop 
rotation strategies to improve soil nutrient levels, break crop pest cycles, and improve soil 
conservation; advise on environment preservation with organic production and without the use of 
pesticides; develop long-term strategies to increase profitability and competitiveness of farms; develop 
and adopt technological solutions for sustainable farm systems; and facilitate collaboration between 
farm producers, processors, and buyers of crops and livestock. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
However, the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that his work would impact the field 
more broadly, stating, "Here, we find the evidence does not show that the [Petitioner's] proposed 
endeavor as a [sic] Agronomist Engineer stand [sic] to sufficiently extend beyond his future employer, 
its clientele, and its community to impact the industry more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance." Accordingly, the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish the 
proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director's decision has numerous errors in law and fact. 
The Petitioner argues that evidence in the record corroborates the broader implications in the 
agribusiness sector of his proposed endeavor rising to the level of national importance. He argues that 
that evidence in the record shows his proposed endeavor's "potential to stimulate economic growth, 
create jobs, enhance agricultural practices, promote sustainability, and align with government initiates 
such as the Agriculture Innovation Agenda and the Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and 
Biomanufacturing Innovation." 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of evidence. Upon de nova review, we find the 
5 With his reply to a request for evidence notice, the Petitioner submitted letters from companies offering him jobs as a 
farm manager and as a food production manager. He also submitted email correspondence in which he expresses interest 
in working as a farm manager, food production operations manager, produce manager, farm sow unit manager, assistant 
farm manager, field supervisor, and field and agriculture equipment sales specialist. The Petitioner did not provide an 
explanation for these documents, except noting they are job opportunities. 
3 
Petitioner did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that his endeavor satisfies the 
national importance element of Dhanasar's first prong. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. Here, the 
Petitioner has not provided evidence specifically explaining the types of work he proposes to 
undertake beyond working in the occupation of agronomist engineering for agribusiness companies, 
farms, and food industries. When demonstrating the national importance of a proposed endeavor, a 
petitioner should offer details of the proposed endeavor beyond the normal duties of an occupation. 6 
In Dhanasar, although the petitioner was an engineer by occupation, he discusses his specific intended 
work "to engage in research and development relating to air and space propulsion systems, as well as 
to teach aerospace engineering." Id. at 891. Here, other than listing the duties of an agronomist 
engineer and that the Petitioner intends to work with companies; the record lacks specific projects and 
goals sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the national importance of his proposed endeavor is evident 
through its potential economic, environmental, and societal benefits. The Petitioner contends the 
environment would benefit through his implementation of agronomic engineering strategies, including 
crop rotation strategies, organic production methods, and soil analysis. Such strategies would improve 
the quality of soil fertility, crops, and food supply while reducing the risk of pests and crop diseases. 
He further contends that the reduction of pesticides and fertilizers on crops and food supply would 
promote a healthier living for people and decrease the risk of diseases caused by harmful chemicals in 
pesticides and fertilizer. 
The Petitioner's statements in the record emphasize the potential economic impact of his proposed 
endeavor by creating of jobs in the agricultural field, stimulating economic growth in rural areas, and 
revitalizing lower income communities with employment. He further contends that improving the 
environment would lead to economic benefits for farm companies by increasing their profitability with 
the reduction of pesticide and fertilizer costs. Also, his crop rotation strategies and organic production 
methods "will help increase [U.S] agriculture's competitiveness in the global market" leading "to 
increased exports and foreign investment in the [U.S.] agricultural section, which will positively 
impact the overall economy." 
The Petitioner's statements claiming that his work as an agronomist engineer will have economic, 
environmental, and societal benefit for the United States has not been established through independent 
and objective evidence. The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in 
his statements that his proposed endeavor has the potential to provide significant economic, 
environmental , and societal benefits to the United States. The Petitioner's statements are not sufficient 
to demonstrate his endeavor has the potential to provide such benefits to the United States. The 
Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Also, without sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed 
endeavor as an agronomist engineer for companies in the United States would impact the agronomist 
engineering industry more broadly rather than benefiting him, his employers, and the companies he 
6 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, F.5(0)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
4 
would work with, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his 
proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
The Petitioner's statements in the record emphasize that his academic credentials, professional 
experience, and past achievements show that his proposed endeavor has potential prospective impact. 
The Petitioner's statements submitted with the initial filing assert that his rare, specific knowledge and 
expertise in the field of agronomic engineering enable him to impact the United States. For instance, 
Counsel's letter states, 
As an Agronomic Engineer, [the Petitioner] creates the opportunity to raise the 
standard of living for the United States and the world. His work is a key factor in 
creating a healthy economy. Through the elements discussed throughout this prong 
- economic impacts, professional demand, talent shmiage, as well as the endeavor's 
merit - [the Petitioner's] high level in skill will undoubtedly create sizable positive 
outcomes for essentially all elements established by Dhanasar - business, 
entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, health, or education - but especially 
technology, considering agriculture is an industry that affects essentially all aspects 
of our everyday lives. 
However, the Petitioner's reliance on his professional knowledge and previous professional 
achievements and experience to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor is 
misplaced. His academic credentials, professional experience, and achievements relate to the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor 
that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. To 
evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we 
look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. See id. at 889. 
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. The record 
does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the field of 
agronomist engineering, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking may have national 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, 
such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. The 
evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's agronomist engineering work would impact his field 
more broadly. 
We further note that the record includes two opinions attesting to the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
national interest waiver, both of which include analyses of the national importance of the Petitioner's 
endeavor. An opinion froml Iassociate professor for the bioystems 
and agricultural engineering department with the I at the
Iopines that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance 
stating, "[The Petitioner's] endeavor supports areas of national importance .... Hence, high skilled 
and experienced agricultural engineers like [the Petitioner] will help the [United States] to be more 
competitive in creating new solutions and opportunities, and in averting some of the risks associated 
with his field." The opinion explains, "[The Petitioner] ... intends to generate significant positive 
5 
I 
economic and social impacts in the [United States] by applying his expertise in agricultural and 
biological engineering, strategic planning, and agribusiness management. [The Petitioner] aims to 
generate significant positive economic and social impacts in the [United Staes], leading towards 
growth and improvement in valuable sectors of the country's economy." The opinion lists the work 
the Petitioner would do as an agricultural engineer for U.S. agribusiness companies, farms, and food 
industries, as is described in the Petitioner's statements. The opinion also describes the importance of 
the agriculture industry, the need for qualified agricultural and biological engineers in the United 
States, and how the agribusiness industry supports important U.S. government initiatives. 
The second opinion froml Ian agronomist and a faculty member atl I 
.______ __.I similarly explains that the Petitioner's area of specialization, agribusiness, is of 
importance to societal welfare, supports important national government initiatives, and is an area of 
growth with a need for qualified workers in the field. The opinion explains the importance of work 
performed by agriculture specialists, the growth of the agricultural industry, the need for 
environmental protections to economic growth, and that the Petitioner's experience in business 
management and agribusiness will help U.S. companies improve productivity and profitability while 
also enhancing the environment. 
However, both opinions focus on the need for qualified professionals in the agricultural industry and 
how the Petitioner's professional experience makes him well positioned to help companies, instead of 
focusing on the Petitioner's specific endeavor and its potential prospective impact on the U.S. 
economy, or in the field of agronomist engineering. Stating that his work experience would benefit 
an important industry is not sufficient to meet the "national importance" requirement under the 
Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor extends beyond his future employers 
to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance. Beyond general assertions, he has not demonstrated that the work he 
proposes to undertake as an agronomist engineer for agribusiness companies, farms, and food 
industries, offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in his industry or otherwise has 
broader implications for his field. The economic, environmental, and societal benefits that the 
Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct 
evidentiary tie between his proposed agronomist engineering work and the claimed results. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve review regarding his 
eligibility under the second and third prongs. 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to 
reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
6 
111. CONCLUSION 
As the record does not establish that the Petitioner has met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, we find that the Petitioner is not eligible for a national interest waiver as amatter 
of discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7