dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entrepreneurship / Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9948368 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 26, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, 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). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center approved the immigrant petition, but subsequently issued 
a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) and later revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had approved the petition in error. Specifically, the 
Director determined that although the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, he had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that he is eligible for 
a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient 
cause, revoke the approval of any petition .... " Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155. By 
regulation this revocation authority is delegated to any USCIS officer who is authorized to approve an 
immigrant visa petition. 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(a). USCIS must give the petitioner notice of its intent to 
revoke the prior approval of the petition and the opportunity to submit evidence in opposition thereto, 
before proceeding with written notice of revocation. See 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b) and (c). The Board of 
Immigration Appeals has discussed revocations on notice as follows: 
[A] notice of intention to revoke a visa petition is properly issued for "good and 
sufficient cause" where the evidence of record at the time the notice is issued, if 
unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the visa petition based upon the 
petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The decision to revoke will be 
sustained where the evidence of record at the time the decision is rendered, including 
any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of 
intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 1 
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. 
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 ofjob 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. 
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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016).2 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 3, 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 
1 Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) ( citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1987)). Upon the 
proper issuance of a notice of intent to revoke for good and sufficient cause, the petitioner bears the burden of proving 
eligibility the requested immigration benefit. Id. at 589. 
2 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
3 See also Poursina v. USC1S, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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. 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined 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. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
Regarding his claim of eligibility under Dhanasar' s first prong, the Petitioner initially indicated that he 
intended to work as an "entrepreneur" involved in "real estate, investments, tax estate planning, and 
wealth transfer." He asserted that his "primary focus is researching investment opportunities, clearing 
the title, and the hiring/managing of the lawyer, certified public accountant (CPA), and property 
manager." The Director's NOIR requested farther clarification of his proposed endeavor and evidence 
of its national importance. 
In response, the Petitioner reiterated that he planned to be "an entrepreneur in the U.S." and that his 
proposed endeavor involved "growing my real estate company[ J and providing 
4 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 
consulting services to U.S. companies, institutions, and individuals in need of expert advice in business, 
legal compliance, and business expansion." He further stated: 
Since November of 2016, I have been a partner of.__ ________ _, leading the 
busines1 management and oneratirs of the U.S.-based real estate investment company.5 
To note.__ ________ ~identifies opportunities for real estate investments, by 
recognizing each property's value and is idealized to provide turnkey solutions through 
defined processes for outside investors, providing customized service to ensure that 
investors investments in American real estate properties are safeguarded an well managed. 
My expertise lies in how I execute and manage our clients' assets to maximize their 
investment. Currently, I manage a well-diversified portfolio of homes within the United 
States, by reducing our investors' exposure to liabilities and risks resulting in property 
ownership. 
The Petitioner's response to the NOIR included information about opportunities in the real estate 
investment industry, real estate as a source of wealth, U.S. home values, projections for the U.S. 
housing market, our country's shortage of affordable housing, immigrant entrepreneurs' pivotal role 
in the U.S. economy, foreign-born entrepreneurship as an engine for job creation, and the economic 
effect of high-growth startups. In addition, the Petitioner provided articles discussing housing's 
connection to economic growth, the economic benefits associated with immigrants, the entrepreneurial 
legacy of immigrants and their children, immigrants' contribution to U.S. entrepreneurship, the value 
of entrepreneurs to the global economy, the benefits of international investment, entrepreneurs as 
drivers of economic development, and small companies' role as job creators. He also submitted 
information about housing's contribution to gross domestic product, the value of entrepreneurship to 
the U.S. economy, the economic contribution of immigrant-launched businesses, immigrant 
entrepreneurship as a driver of U.S. economic growth, the benefit of foreign direct investment to the 
U.S. economy, immigration as an entrepreneurial resource, and the effect of small business on our 
country's economy. 
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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
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." 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. 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner argued that his proposed endeavor stands "to attract more 
investments in the real estate sector, consequently, increasing the number ofreal estate developments, 
which are responsible for a significant amount of jobs and revenues to the economy." He claimed that 
his proposed work in the U.S. real estate market will serve "nation-wide concerns, such as the current 
5 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider information about this position to illustrate the capacity in which he 
intends to work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
4 
shortage of housing." In addition , the Petitioner asserted {hat "[f ]is proposed endeavor will ... bring 
substantial foreign investment activities to the nation, as is a key investor within the nation ' s 
real estate sector." He also stated that his undertaking involves advising "foreign entities on how to 
invest within the U.S . real estate market , thus revitalizing both the nation 's real estate sector and 
foreign investment activities , and, on a bigger spectrum, the national economy." Furthermore, the 
Petitioner stated that his undertaking stands to "incentivize the local and national economy by 1) 
employing and paying U.S. employees, and 2) by supporting local subcontractors." 
In the decision revoking the approval of the petition , the Director concluded that the Petitioner 's 
proposed work has both substantial merit and national importance . For the reasons discussed below , 
we withdraw the Director 's determination that the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance 
of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his particular undertaking. 
Although the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to expand his company , provide busine ss 
consulting services, and man age his clients' real estate investment s, he has not offered sufficient 
information and evidence to demon strate that the pro specti ve impact of his proposed endeavor rises 
to the level of national importance. 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. Here , we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor stands to suffi cientl y extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact the U.S . 
economy or real estate industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S . workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. Specificall y, he has not shown that his company' s level ofreal estate investment 
and consulting activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Tennessee or the United 
States. 6 Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact 
attributable to his future work , the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's real estate investment and consulting projects would reach the 
level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890 . Accordingly, 
the Petition er's propo sed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, and we 
withdraw the Director's determination on this issue. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. The record includes 
documentation of his resume, academic credentials , membership in the I I Bar Association, 
production engineering registration, accounting technician registration, andl I individual 
income tax returns. He also offered a statement detailing his future plans and letters of support 
discussing his work experience . 
6 For example, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that that his undertaking would offer the Tennessee region or its 
population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or foreign direct investment. 
5 
With regard to the Petitioner's work experience at the 
from 2001 until 2003,I I Directo~r_o_f-th_e_D_e_p_a_rt_m_e_n_t_o_f_I_n_fo_rm_a_t-io-n-an_d_E_n_e-rg-y~ 
Studies atl I stated that the Petitioner demonstrated his "skill in quantitative methods, legal and 
economic knowledge, mainl in the calculation of prices of new projects of the most relevant energy 
sources in the country." farther indicated that the Petitioner worked on a managerial 
agreement between the and the National Electric Energy Agency, and served for the National 
Committee fo Nuclear Pro ram. also noted that the Petitioner 
worked as an economic analyst for the.__ _____________ __. (2003-2005) and was 
responsible for "coordinating infrastructure, taking care of macroeconomic and microeconomic 
analyses of the electricity sector, foreign trade, logistics and defense of competition." 
Regarding the Petitioner's temporary mission (2005) at the Ministry of Planning, I l a 
former deputy secretary at the Ministry of Planning, asserted that the Petitioner "assisted in the 
implementation of a centralized day-pass and ticket management information system." I I 
farther indicated that the Petitioner "mapped the most critical implementation processes, develop 
training not only for the officers of the agencies, but also for the operators of the system at its various 
levels, and also wrote a manual for training of operators." 
In addition Director of the Center for ~--------------~ 
L---------------.r---"l---____J' discussed the Petitioner's work experience as a 
legal and economic advisor at~-~ from 2005 until 2018. I I explained that the 
Petitioner's work involved strategic planning, ensuring correct allocation of resources, preservation of 
popula~ I cultures, project management, and designing a program to "market products under 
the seal of the Ministry of Culture." 
Furthermore, the record includes a June 201 7 "Proof of Enrollment and Registration Status" forLJ 
~----------~---------- a "Private Agreement of the Constitution of 
the Company," a contractual amendment for the company (January 2018), and a "Foreign Exchange 
Contract" (J anua 2018 . 7 This documentation identifies the Petitioner and four others as partners in 
but the record does not include evidence ~-----.-----.-----------------...., of this.__ __ _. company's business transactions or tax returns. 
The Director's NOIR acknowledged the Petitioner's "experience as al I government employee," 
but noted that he intended to work as an entrepreneur in the United States. The NOIR indicated that while 
"the Petitioner is a partner of al I company that has been in business since 2017," his limited 
amount of experience as a partner was not sufficient to establish a record of success in business or that he 
is otherwise well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 8 The NOIR farther advised the Petitioner 
of the types of evidence USCIS considers in determining eligibility under Dhanasar' s second prong. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a "Professional Plan and Statement" discussing his government 
experience withl khe Ministry of Planning, andl I He also indicated that he was a partner 
7 The "Proof of Enrollment and Registration Status" document lists the company's activities as "rent or own properties" 
and "purchase and sale" of prope1iies. 
81 , , I was registered in June 2017, and the Petitioner filed his 
immigrant petition in May 2018. Accordingly, the record indicates that he had less than one year of business experience 
as a partner with the company at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
6 
,....w_1_.th....Jl..__ _______ --,-__________ _.I ~--------~ andD 
~I-----------~'' but the record did not include evidence of his business experience with 
the latter two companies. 
In the decision revoking the approval of the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's 
education and work experience were insufficient to render him well positioned to advance his Imposed I 
endeavor. With respect to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to expand his U.S. company, 
I I the Director noted that the Petitioner had not offered documentation relating to this 
company's operations. The Director's decision further stated: 
While the petitioner has stated his plan is to grow his real estate company and provide 
consulting services to U.S. companies, institutions, and individuals in need of expert 
advice in business, legal compliance and business expansion, no evidence was provided 
to suggest that he has made any progress towards achieving this goal, or to support that 
he has any interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides documentation of the legal existence of ~--------­
its business activities, and letters from three potential business partners. As noted, where a petitioner has 
been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that 
deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. Matter of Soriano, 
19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth below, this new evidence and the documentation previously 
submitted are not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor. The appellate submission includes a September 2016 operating agreement for 
I l the company's "Certificate of Filing" and "Certificate of Formation" with the 
State of Texas, a letter from the Internal Revenue Service assigning the company an Employer 
Identification Number, and an "Amended and Restated O eratin A reement." The Petitioner also 
presents residential lease agreements for properties at ' ' " ' 
I ~' 1 I".___ ____ ____.' and' 
I I' ~---
Additionally, the Petitioner submits three letters from business contacts inl I and the United States. 
The first letter is from al llawyer who states that the Petitioner "referred my services to one of 
his church friends that lives in the U.S." and who expresses interest a partnership for real estate 
investments. The second letter is from a real estate investor who asserts that the Petitioner helped him 
"handle and sell" two properties in the I I area. The third letter is from a gutter services 
company manager in Florida who contends that he and the Petitioner discussed merging their real 
estate investment operations. 
While the Petitioner's documentation shows his involvement with six rental properties and includes 
letters from a few potential business partners, the record does not reflect sufficient interest from 
potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals to demonstrate that the 
Petitioner is well positioned to advance his company's real estate operations. Nor does the evidence 
show that the Petitioner's past experience in government and business, track record of running a real 
7 
estate investment company, plan for future activities, and progress towards achieving his company's 
goals rise to the level of rendering him well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 9 
Further, as it relates to the Petitioner's education, while his Master of Science degree in Economics 
(2008) renders him eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, he has not shown that his 
academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor. 10 In Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner held multiple 
graduate degrees including "two master of science degrees, in mechanical engineering and applied 
physics, as well as a Ph.D. in engineering." Id. at 891. We look to a variety of factors in determining 
whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and education is merely one 
factor among many that may contribute to such a finding. 
Finally, regarding the Petitioner's membership in the I I Bar Association, production 
engineering registration, and accounting technician registration, he has not demonstrated that the 
aforementioned membership and registrations are an indication that he is well positioned to advance his 
advance his company's real estate operations in Tennessee or elsewhere in the United States. As the 
record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As explained above, the third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. Here, the Petitioner claims that he is eligible for a waiver due to the impracticality of 
labor certification, "the potential creation of jobs and increase of revenue," and the importance of 
immigrant entrepreneurship. However, as the Petitioner has not established the national importance 
of his proposed endeavor and that he is well positioned to advance that endeavor as required by the 
first and second prongs of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver 
and further discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful 
purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first and second prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 
we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. The revocation of the previously approved petition is affirmed for the above 
stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9 For instance, the Petitioner did not provide tax returns or audited financial statements for any of his companies as evidence 
of his progress in the proposed endeavor or record of success in business. 
10 The Petitioner has also received a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Engineering (1999) and a Bachelor of Science 
degree in Law (2012). 
8