dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Ranch Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 26, 2025 In Re: 37104871 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a ranch manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that he qualifies for the EB-2 immigrant classification as amember of the professions holding 
an advance degree, or that he merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement in the national 
interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
In these proceedings, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 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. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. An 
advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
1that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
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 for the EB-2 visa 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. 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 
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. 
interest to do so. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for 
adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of 
discretion,2 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. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to continue working in the United States as the president and ranch manager 
of his cattle ranch operations management business. 
A. EB-2 Visa Classification 
After reviewing the evidence in the record, the Petitioner has demonstrated he is eligible for the 
underlying EB-2 immigrant classification as amember of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
The Petitioner submitted his diploma indicating that in May 2014 he earned a bachelor of science in 
finance froml Iin Florida. He also submitted letters verifying his work 
as ageneral manager for Ifrom April 2016 to March 2024. The letters confirm 
the Petitioner's progressive work experience in his specialty of ranch management. Based on this 
evidence, the Petitioner has a U.S. bachelor's degree followed by five years of progressive experience 
in his specialty of ranch management, thereby qualifyi ng for the EB-2 immigrant classification as an 
advanced degree professional. 
We, therefore, withdraw the Director's determination to the contrary . 
B. National Interest Waiver 
Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor satisfies the 
national importance element of the first prong of Dhanasar 's analytical framework.3 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Id. 
The Petitioner proposes to continue working for his existing cattle ranch operations management 
business located in arural area of Florida. The business provides operational logistics services to other 
ranch businesses, specifically specializing in the more complicated backgrounding stage of the beef 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeal in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
supply chain by managing a calves' weight gain and health. In addition, his business provides ranch 
grazing and feedlot operations management. In managing the business, he oversees its day-to-day 
operations to ensure effective backgrounding of the cattle, including cattle feed, growth, and health; 
collaborates with industry partners, suppliers, and customers to streamline the cattle supply chain; and 
manages finances and personnel. In his business plan, he describes his intent to expand his business' 
operations over the next five years in order to optimize the productivity and profitability of cattle farms 
and to enhance the quality of beef produced in the United States. We agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor to be an entrepreneur and cattle ranch manager for his business has 
substantial merit. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director based the decision on erroneous conclusions of law 
and statements of fact. Pointing to alleged errors of fact in the decision, he maintains the Director 
incorrectly interpreted the evidence and that the evidence demonstrates his eligibility for the national 
interest waiver. In particular, the Petitioner maintains that his statements, business plan, and letters of 
support clearly set out the national importance of his proposed endeavor, including its potential 
significant economic impact for bolstering local rural economies and its potential impact on matters 
which are the subject of national initiatives and described by government entities as nationally 
important. 
However, the Petitioner's claims that his ranch operations management business stands to provide 
broader impact on his field, the local rural communities it intends to service, and the nation have not 
been established through independent and objective evidence. We acknowledge and consider the 
Petitioner's statements, existing business' documents, and business plan showing his commitment to 
providing ranch operations management services to the cattle livestock industry in a rural area of 
Florida. He, however, has not sufficiently documented the potential prospective impact, including the 
asserted broader implications for his ranch management field or the beef production industry, or the 
economic impact to the local rural community rises to the level of national importance contemplated 
under Dhanasar. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is preponderance of the 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 his 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.; see also Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
The Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his claims and must be suppmied by 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Without 
sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed endeavor would impact his field or the nation more 
broadly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his endeavor is 
of national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, 
we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[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 
3 
advances." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner argues his endeavor's potential economic impact is documented in his business plan 
and his existing business' financial and tax documents. He points out that his business had positive 
net income in 2021 and 2022, and that by expanding his business, it would have an economic impact 
for the local rural Florida area by creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and investing in the local cattle 
ranch industry. The business plan explains his business' ranch operations management services and 
its financial and personnel forecasts. By year five, the business is projected to hire 16 employees, pay 
wages of $884,154, and generate payroll and income taxes of approximately $250,000. 
While the Petitioner's existing business' finances help explain his proposed endeavor and its potential 
economic forecasts, the evidence does not demonstrate his endeavor has the claimed significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects rising to the level of 
national importance. With respect to the endeavor's future financial and staffing projections, the 
record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its projections, nor does it adequately explain how these 
projections will be realized based on the existing business. First, the financial documents submitted 
indicate that the business has experienced a modest net income of $215,414.59 in 2021 and a lesser 
net income of $78,662.37 in 2022, which tends to undercut the business' financial and personnel 
projections. Second, the Petitioner indicates he has been the sole employee of the business since its 
establishment in 2014 and has not explained how the business intends to increase its projected 
employment to 16 in five years. 
Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record lacks evidence 
showing that creating 16 jobs, paying wages of $884,154, and generating approximately $250,000 in 
payroll and income taxes over a five-year period rises to the level of national importance. Also, without 
sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed job duties as the president and manager of his ranch 
operations management business have the potential to have the claimed broader implications in his 
field, or the local or U.S. economy, rather than benefiting his business and its business partners and 
clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed 
endeavor is of national importance. 
Next, the Petitioner claims his endeavor aligns with and contributes to nationally important U.S. 
government initiatives and policies supporting the agricultural industry, independent beef cattle 
processing capacity, and job creation in rural areas. Providing his expertise to local market 
stakeholders would not only contribute to impacting the local rural economy but also has the potential 
to impact nationally important matters. Specifically, he alleges his business would enhance cattle 
production and health and strengthen the beef supply chain in the United States. To support his claims, 
the Petitioner submitted U.S. government policy fact sheets and industry reports and articles 
highlighting the national initiatives, including areport on new government grants for meat and poultry 
processors; a U.S. Presidential plan for supporting fairer, more competitive, and more resilient meat 
and poultry supply chains; reports from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) describing the 
impact of the cattle production, agriculture, and food industries on the U.S. economy; the growth of 
U.S. agricultural export industry; the economic impacts of the U.S. beef industry; and the 
interdependence of human, animal, and plant health on global health. 
4 
The importance of U.S. government initiatives and policies supporting the agricultural and beef 
processing industries is not in dispute, but their overall significance does not establish the national 
importance of the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor in particular. While his proposed endeavor may be 
related to cattle production and the agriculture and beef industries, that alone does not mean his 
proposed business rises to the level of national importance. Instead, as stated earlier, we focus on the 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" and consider the endeavor's 
"potential prospective impact." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner makes 
general statements about his business aligning with national initiatives but does not quantify the 
proposed endeavor's expected impact in the identified areas of concern, or provide objective, probative 
evidence to support his proposed endeavor's claimed impact on such nationally important matters. 
Although the Petitioner provides evidence that supporting the agricultural and beef processing 
industries are nationally important issues, he has not demonstrated the potential prospective impact of 
his specific endeavor to such nationally important matters. 
Moreover, working in an important field or industry with a shortage of workers is insufficient to 
establish national importance. We recognize the importance of the agricultural and beef processing 
industries and related careers to the U.S. economy and public health. While the industry reports and 
articles show the economic impacts of the agricultural and beef processing industries and the demand 
for qualified workers in those industries, they do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact, job 
creation, or public health impact specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In 
addition, the Petitioner's intention to transfer his knowledge to the U.S. labor workforce to help 
alleviate the shortage of qualified ranch managers and agricultural workers does not demonstrate the 
national importance of his endeavor. 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. Likewise, the Petitioner transferring his knowledge to others in his 
field would not rise to having national importance. Instead, the U.S. Department of Labor, through 
the labor certification process, directly addresses such shortages of qualified workers. 
With his experience in the field, his understanding of the local market, and his business' strong 
financial history, the Petitioner contends his business is prepared to have a competitive advantage over 
others to contribute to the efficiency and sustainability of the U.S. beef industry. To support his claims, 
the Petitioner indicates that the Director overlooked letters of support from his business partners and 
industry professionals who attest that his expertise in cattle ranch management "contributes to the 
overall efficiency and sustainability of the U.S. beef industry. " He argues that the support letters 
demonstrate the extent of his expertise and his relationships with industry stakeholders "is crucial for 
the [United States] as it seeks to maintain and enhance its competitive edge in the global agricultural 
market." Pointing to a letter that explains the complexities of backgrounding cattle and his 
achievement of low mortality rates in his cattle operations, the Petitioner alleges it demonstrates his 
business' significant impact of animal health and on public health. 
The letters, however, do not quantify the extent of the Petitioner's economic and public health impact 
on the community. The letters' general statements do not show the potential of substantial positive 
economic or public health effects as contemplated under Dhanasar. Instead, the letters from the 
Petitioner's customers and business partners attest to his ranch management knowledge and how he 
has helped their business' cattle operations and finances. While the letters confirm the Petitioner's 
5 
work experience and show his work has been valued and beneficial to their businesses, they do not 
detail how his proposed endeavor would have the claimed impacts on U.S. beef industry, or the local 
economy and public health that rise the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner's claims depend on numerous factors, and he did not offer a sufficiently direct 
evidentiary tie between his proposed work and the claimed economic and public health benefits to 
Florida, his local rural community, or the United States. While the Petitioner expresses his desire to 
contribute to the United States and its rural communities, he has not established with specific, 
probative evidence that his endeavor has the claimed potential to extend beyond his business, clients, 
and business partners to impact the field; to have significant potential to employ U.S. workers; to have 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area; to broadly 
enhance societal welfare; or impact a matter which is the subject of national initiatives at a level 
commensurate with national importance. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a 
preponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he is well-positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong, or 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. But, 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. 
This identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments and eligibility under the second and 
third prongs of Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagarnasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N 
Dec. at 526 n.7. 
111. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has 
not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as amatter of discretion. 
The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6