The Petitioner, an agronomist engineer, intended to provide specialized services to multiple agribusiness companies, farms, and food industries in the U.S., focusing on operational turnaround, productivity optimization, and strategic planning to impact the agricultural field.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record lacks specific projects and goals sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor”

“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”

“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”

“Stating that his work experience would benefit an important industry is not sufficient to meet the "national importance" requirement under the Dhanasar framework.”

“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”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “focus on the need for qualified professionals in the agricultural industry ... instead of focusing on the Petitioner's specific endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “His academic credentials, professional experience, and achievements relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited
• other · discounted

  “The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for these documents, except noting they are job opportunities.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

Notable

Petitioner proposed to work simultaneously with multiple businesses rather than a single employer; AAO nonetheless found his description too generic/duty-based (mirroring normal occupational duties) rather than a specific endeavor, and treated job-offer letters submitted in RFE response as unexplained/irrelevant. AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 despite Director having ruled on prong 3.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
• The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
• The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
• The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
• The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod