dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11109014 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 25, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a CEO and entrepreneur, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, as well as a national interest waiver 
of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). After a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 
grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
qualify for the underlying classification. The Director additionally determined that the proposed 
endeavor lacked national importance and that the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Accordingly, the Directordeterminedthatthe Petitioner 
had not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner submits additional evidence and reasserts his 
eligibility, arguing that the Director did not properly weigh and consider the evidence. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification (emphasis added), 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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
{A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver .... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
2 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016).1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion,2 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 3 
11. ANALYSIS 
A Evidentiary Criteria for Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not qualify as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. In his initial filing, the Petitioner submitted a notification from his Nigerian school, 
I I University, which stated that he had fulfilled all the school's requirements, passed the requlred 
examinations, and was approved to be awarded a Bachelor of Laws degree in effect from November 
2006. The Petitioner did not submit his diploma or transcript. 
The Director noted in a request for evidence (RFE) that in order to qualify as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, that the Petitioner needed to submit an accompanying academic evaluation 
to establish the U.S. equivalency of his foreign degree. The RFE further notified the Petitioner that the 
evidence did not establish five years of progressive, post-baccelaureate employment experience, or how 
his education related to the proposed endeavor, which had been described as "CEO" and 
"business/housing developer" on the Form I -140. 
In his RFE response, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to address these deficiences. 
In her decision denying the petition, the Director noted that the employment letters provided in the RFE 
response did not include the Petitioner's specific employment dates, nor did the Petitioner submit his 
complete academic record or a foreign academic equivalency evaluation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner still has not provided his complete academic record but provides an academic 
equivalency evaluation which states that the Petitioner has earned a Nigerian Bachelor's of Law degree, 
and that it is equivalent to a U.S. juris doctor degree. Upon review of the academic equivalency 
evaluation, we note that the evaluator considered transcripts and grades issued by the Registrar of 
I IUniversityon June 9, 2018. However, the record contains no transcript, grades, or diploma, 
and the only reference we have for these documents comes from the information listed in the evaluation. 
Therefore, the evaluation is based upon documentation not in the record and not available for our 
independent inspection and verification. Moreover, although the evaluation lists the Petitioner's courses, 
grades, and years of attendance, it does not contain an adequate explanation of how the Petitioner's five-
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I &N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir.2019)(fincling USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest wa iverto bed iscretionary in nature). 
3 See Dhanasar, 261 &N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. 
3 
year degree is the equivalent of a U.S. juris doctor degree, which typically requires a four-year bachelor's 
degree in addition to a three-year law degree. We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's 
foreign education as an advisory opinion. Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817,820 (Comm'r 1988). 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we 
may discount or give less weight to that evaluation. Id. Here, the evaluator utilized documents and 
made assertions notadequatelysupported with evidence. Therefore, the evaluation has little probative 
value in this matter. 
The evidence submitted on appeal contains new employer letters, one of which is from the Petitioner's 
company] I The letter states that the Petitioner is a founder of the 
company and has been fully employed since March 2012 as a board member. This letter does not 
establish that the Petitioner's experience has been progressive, as it contains little discussion of the 
Petitioner's duties and experience. In fact, the letter defers to the Petitioner to explain what his 
experience involves. Although the Petitioner claimed that his company has a human resources 
division, the letter is not issued by this division, but rather it is from another board memberwho, based 
upon a shared last name, appears to be a relative of the Petitioner. 
The appeal also contains two letters from.___~----~--' one of which states that the 
Petitioner worked from November 2007 to December 2011 "in the capacity oflnvestment advisor and 
grew to become the Sales Manager." Another letter dated in 2007, offers the Petitioner employment 
as a "Sales Managers/Investment Advisor." From these two letters, it is not clear how the Petitioner's 
work experience was progressive or how the Petitioner "grew to" a new position as Sales Manager 
when he had already been offered the position of Sales Managers/Investment Advisor in 2007. The 
Petitioner also stated on appeal that he "started with the position of Sales Managers/Investment 
Advisor," which does not suggest any progressive work experience. 4 Moreover, because the letters 
do not sufficiently describe the duties, it cannot be concluded that if the two positions are different, 
that the movement was progressive, as opposed to lateral, in nature.5 
We question the credibility of these letters and at a minimum conclude that they lack probative value 
in establishing the Petitioner's work experience. Overall, these credibility concerns lead usto question 
whether the Petitioner attempted to cure deficiencies in the record by creating evidence that did not 
exist at the time of filing his petition. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency 
of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
In his RFE response, the Petitioner described his area of exceptional ability as business development 
and entrepreneurship. On appeal, the Petitioner explains that his "background in the Law of contract'' 
4 With his initial filing, the Petitioner stated that healsoworked as propertyconsultantand as one of the directors of □ 
I bhoweverneither of these claims is substantiated in the record. By contrast, the initial letterf rom 
~----~ tatedthat the Petitionerworkedasa real estate broker. The inconsistent claims combined with a lack of 
specific information diminish thecred ibility of these letters. 
5 It shou Id be noted that the letter dated in 2007 appears to be of the same quality, age, and nature as the letter issued in 
2020, neitherofwhich bears an original signature. The ink, paper, and logo suggest thatthe 2007 letter may have actually 
been written and printed in 2020. Bath letters bearthespellingofthestreetnamel I which appears in other parts 
of the record asl I' and i I' Finally, an internet search reveals a different address for this company than 
the one listed on these letters. 
4 
guides him in business and property law, which informs his work in real estate and investments. Here, 
the Petitioner offers an insufficient connection between his degree and the proposed endeavor. While 
we do not have the Petitioner's academic record, we note the equi valency evaluation I ists the Petitioner 
as having taken several contracts courses but no classes in business, property/real estate, corporate, or 
investment law. The Petitioner offers little other evidence or explanation to establish a connection 
between his education and his claimed expertise in business development and entrepreneurship. 
Due to the evidentiary deficiencies in his academic degree and work experience, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established that he is a member of the professions with an advanced degree. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria for Exceptional Ability 
The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability. 
As discussed below, a review of the record indicates that the Petitioner does not meet at least three of the 
relevant evidentiary criteria. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
We noted above that the Petitioner has not submitted his academic record, nor has he sufficiently 
connected the claimed academic degree of a Bachelor's of Law to the claimed area of exceptional 
ability.6 Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s)from current or former employer(s) showing thatthe alien 
has at least ten years offull-timeexperience in the occupationforwhich he or she is being 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
While the progressive nature of the Petitioner's work with his own company J I has not been 
established, sufficient documentation in the record does establish that he has been employed in business 
and entrepreneurship withl lsince 2012. The Petitioner claimed that even since living in the United 
States as of April 2018, he still works fifty hours a week tori l 
We also acknowledge a letter of recommendation from,__ ________ ___,, which states that 
the Petitioner has been working as a franchisee since 2009. This letter, however, conflicts with the 
franchise purchase documents that were not signed until 2016, and which state that they are effective 
from 2010. The Petitioner claims to work fifty hours per week tori I and 
has described himself as a manager. However, neither the letter from a fellow franchisee nor the 
Petitioner's self-reported claims are sufficient to serve as evidence from the Petitioner's current or 
former employer(s), nor do these claims establish the Petitioner's full-time experience in the 
occupation. Moreover, as explained previously, the letters issued b~ I describe 
6 On appeal, the Petitioner's attorney states that the Petitioner holds the equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate degree in 
architecture and also refers to the Petitioner by using the feminine pronoun "she." Similarly, the attorney's initial letter 
references~ las the Petitioner, which is a name not found elsewhere in the record. Therefore, we questbn 
whetherthesedocuments were actually prepared for another petitioner. 
5 
the Petitioner's w01k in an inconsistent and insufficiently detailed manner, which reduces their probative 
value, while their appearance and content raise questions as to their credibility. 
Although the Petitioner has established some work experience in the area of business and 
entrepreneurship, the evidence is insufficient to establish ten years of full-time experience at the time of 
filing. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) 
The Petitioner submitted a certificate signed in 2013 that states he was elected in 2012 as an 
"Associate" member of the Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers .7 Initially, we note 
that the Director discussed this evidence under the criterion pertaining to licensure, although it is 
unclear whether the document represents a membership or a license. Nevertheless, the Director 
determined that the evidence did not establish that a license was required to practice in the occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted documentation concerning the various ways one can obtain a 
membership to the Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers. After examining the 
membership requirements, we question how the Petitioner meets any of them. For instance, the 
Petitioner does not possess a bachelor of science degree certificate in real estate, which is a basic 
requirement of graduates who seek membership. In any case, none of the documentation establishes 
why such a membership (or license) would be required to practice the occupation. Accordingly, the 
evidence does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
We acknowledge thel I pay slips evidencing income from Nigeria, which the Director found 
insufficient to satisfy this criterion. 8 On appeal, the Petitioner submitted a foreign tax statement for 
years 2016-2018, which indicates income in Nigerian Naira of 1,250,000 for 2018; 875,000 for 2017; 
and 450,000 for 2016. Taken together, we observe inaccuracies that diminish the credibility of these 
documents. For instance, the pay slip income for a one-month pay period in 2018 exceeds the total 
income reported on the tax statement for the year 2018. The tax document was also issued after the 
filing of the petition and therefore does not establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the Petitioner "has commanded a salary or 
remuneration for services that is indicative of his or her claimed exceptional ability relative to others 
working in the field." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2). It appears logical and appropriate to 
consider the Petitioner's income based on the wage statistics or comparable evidence in the foreign 
country in which it is earned, rather than by converting the salary to U.S. dollars and then viewing 
whether that salary would be considered high in the United States. Accordingly, even if the 
Petitioner's evidence was credible, we would still find that he had not provided evidence to establish 
how his compensation compares to other CEOs working in real estate, oil, and construction in the 
7 We acknowledge the Petitioner's statements on appeal thatc=J is registered and licensed to operate as a business, 
howeverth is relates to the business ratherthan the Petitioner himself. 
8 The majority of the pay slips were dated after the Petitioner was already living in the United States. The Petitioner did 
not submit U.S. tax or bank documents to substantiate the income claimed on these pay slips. 
6 
same geographical area. For the foregoing reasons, the evidence does not establish whether this 
income demonstrates exceptional ability. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
The Petitioner submitted documentation thatl I and~--------~ are business 
entity members of associations, however the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence of his own 
personal membership in professional associations. We acknowledge the I !Lion's Club 
membership certificate, however, as the Director noted, there is no evidence of how this association 
relates to the area of business and entrepreneurship, nor does the certificate contain a date of issuance. 
Returning to the Petitioner's claims of membership as an "Associate" in the Nigerian Institution of 
Estate Surveyors and Valuers, it remains unclear whether the Petitioner retained his 2012 membership 
up through the filing of the petition and if so, how he has maintained such a membership given that he 
does not appear to meet the membership requirements. Accordingly, the evidence does not establish 
that the Petitioner satisfied th is criterion. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) 
As the Director stated, the evidence does not articulate specific contributions or achievements attributable 
to the Petitioner, rather than attributable to his business] I The Petitioner has not substantiated his 
initial claims that he or his company developed! I building technology, nor has he submitted 
evidence that shows achievement or significant contributions to the field. The article written concerning 
the Petitioner's philanthropic work for a boys' grammar school concerns a local award and offers no 
indication that the Petitioner has achieved recognition in his field by the business industry as a whole. 
Likewise, the letter of appreciation from the girls school also does not indicate the Petitioner has garnered 
recognition for a larger achievement or contribution to the industry. 
The letters of recommendation that pertain to the Petitioner, as opposed to his business, do not provide 
specif icachievementsor contributionswhichthe Petitioner made to the field overall. Instead, they largely 
praise his character, reference positive qualities he has as an employee, or mention achievements he has 
had within the particular company. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific 
contributions or their impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in 
immigration benefits adjudications). The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters so as to determine 
whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 500, n.2 
(BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. 
Summary 
The record does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets at least three of the six regulatory criteria 
for exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The Petitioner has not established his eligibility as 
an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. As previously outlined, the 
7 
Petitioner must show that he is either an advanced degree professional or possesses exceptional ability 
before we reach the question of the national interest waiver. The evidence does not establish that the 
Petitioner meets the regulatory criteria for classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or that he is an individual of exceptional ability. 
C. National Importance 
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification, the issue of 
the national interest waiver is moot. The waiver is available only to foreign workers who otheiwise 
qualify for classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. However, because the Director made 
additional eligibility findings and the Petitioner alleges error in the Director's decision, we will provide 
additional analysis using the Dhanasar framework.9 
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. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit but that the evidence was 
insufficient to establish that it meets the national importance requirement.1° The proposed endeavor 
involves building low cost fireproof rural housing using locally-sourced materials, as well as real estate 
and housing development sales. The Petitioner has pledged his endeavor will create jobs, but he has 
provided no estimates as to how many, what types, or in what geographical areas. He claims he will be 
able to offer affordable housing to lower income individuals, which would address the shortage of 
affordable housing, but he has not stated how much affordable housing he will create or what the broader 
impact will be. The Petitioner intends to invest in small businesses and obtain his building materials 
locally, yet he has not estimated how much revenue his proposed endeavor will create to establish how 
much can be invested, nor has he shown how the purchasing of local building materials will have a 
broadernational impact. The Petitioner also espouses the fireproof virtues of his building materials, his 
structural designs, and his method of construction, however he does not explain how these techniques are 
different from home construction techniques currently being used in the United States. Although the 
Petitioner claims to have conducted feasibility studies and research on the endeavor, he has not provided 
further details or copies of the studies and research. The Petitioner referenced beginning the proposed 
endeavor in California, Texas and Maryland, but he has not identified where specifically, nor how 
focusing on these areas translates to an endeavor that is national in scope. For the foregoing reasons, the 
evidence is insufficient and lacks the requisite detail necessary to support a finding that the endeavor has 
national importance. 
D. Whether the Petitioner is Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the pro posed endeavor to the Petitioner. Although the Petitioner 
claims he will create jobs by hiring locally and will invest in small businesses, as well as create affordable 
housing in California, Texas, and Maryland, he provides few specific details on how he has positioned 
9 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
10 Because the identified reasons ford ismissal are dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the arguments regarding the endeavor's substantial merit aspect of prong one of the Dhanasar framework, as well 
as prong three. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to makefinding, 
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 (BIA2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
8 
himself for this to occur. He has not, for example, identified the specifical rural communities where 
building and real estate development will occur. There is little indication that potential low-income rural 
customers, or any customers, have interest in the proposed endeavor. He claims his proposed endeavor 
will offer fireproof housing at a low cost, but he has not identified how his positioning, as compared with 
those of other developers already in the market, will enable him to obtain lower cost building materials 
and housing. The Petitioner has not established that his foreign experience and education have any 
bearing or significance in the U.S. housing and real estate markets. He has not submitted evidence that 
he has a U.S. real estate license, or has employed others with U.S. licenses, such as structural engineers 
and builders. The record contains little indication that he has building permits, contracts with suppliers, 
or intellectual property rights to the fireproof strategies he identifies. If it is the Petitioner's intention to 
usel I to advance the proposed endeavor, which is unclear from the record, he has not submitted 
evidence thatl I is a registered business in the United States or possesses the appropriate U.S. federal 
or state permissions to engage in the proposed endeavor. Moreover, as suggested,b..Y...b.i.s..esume and the 
Form ETA 9089 included in the record, the Petitioner works fifty hours a week fmL_jand fifty hours 
a week as anl I. manager. As such, it is unclear how much time, if any, he 
could devote to the proposed endeavor. 
We note thatthe Petitioner intends to fundtheendeavorthrough financing purportedly obtained in Nigeria 
through the Petitioner's companyJ 111 Upon review of the Form 1-140, we note thatl I is not 
listed as the petitioning organization. It is unclear how any financing secured from a bank loan in Nigeria 
could be disbursed to the Petitioner for use in the United States. The Petitioner referenced difficulty in 
obtaining the disbursement of funds from a previous loan application and there is little indication that 
current funds could or would be disbursed for the Petitioner's use in the United States, as opposed to 
I l's use for projects located in Nigeria. Nor has the Petitioner submitted credible evidence that he 
has sufficient personal funds to advance the proposed endeavor. We conclude that any revenue streams 
appear speculative in nature. The record, as currently constituted, contains few concrete avenues for 
financing the proposed endeavor. 
For the foregoing reasons, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor. 
E. National Interest Waiver 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish: (1) thatthe Petitioner meets the requirements 
of the underlying classification; (2) the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as 
required by the f irstprong of the Dhanasar precedent decision; or (3) that the Petitioner is well positioned 
to advance the proposed endeavor under the second prong, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the third prong outlined in 
Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
11 The Director noted that the loan documents provided by the Petitioner were issued afterthe petition filing and therefore 
were not sufficient to establish financing at the time of filing. On appeal, the Petitioner explains that the original loan 
documents were submitted prior to the petition filing but were subsequently cancelled. Even if true, this still would not 
establish that the Petitioner had secured any loan funding at the time off iling. 
9 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he qualifies for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act 
In addition, the evidence has not shown that the proposed endeavor is of national importance or that 
the Petitioner is well positioned to advance it. As such, he has not established that a waiver of the job 
offer and labor certification would be in the national interest of the United States. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act 8 
U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 l&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10