dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 13, 2024 In Re: 34867180 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the real estate industry, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 
an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 
8 U.S.C. § ll 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. The matter is now before 
us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit 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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional but did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set 
forth below, we agree that the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility under the Dhanasar framework 
and dismiss the appeal. 
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. at 889. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner intends to operate a real estate consulting company,! I 
to provide comprehensive and strategic consulting services relating to pre-negotiation, 
negotiation, and post-negotiation processes in the real estate industry. According to the business plan, 
the company will market its services to small and medium-sized businesses in a variety of industries, 
including retail businesses, healthcare facilities, residential real estate, warehouse facilities, office 
spaces, as well as hotels and rental companies operating within the accommodation sector. The 
company's services will include strategic feasibility analysis, documentation preparation and analysis, 
budget planning and management, negotiation assistance for acquisitions, construction and post­
construction oversight, contract management, and regulatory compliance and licensing. Additionally, 
the Petitioner asserted his company could provide training on a variety of subjects including real estate 
investment, market trends, regulatory compliance, and risk management through educational webinar 
series. According to the Petitioner, his company will enable informed decision-making and financial 
prudence in real estate transactions, resulting in increased economic activity, job creation, and the 
strengthening of small and medium-sized businesses. And the Petitioner asserted that his company 
could increase the availability of low-income housing to address the housing shortage crisis in the 
United States. 
In support of his endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a five-year business plan, an expert opinion letter, 
several articles, industry reports, and government fact sheets relating to the real estate industry, and 
the economic impact of small and medium-sized businesses, as well as government initiatives to 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
address the housing crisis in the United States. The Petitioner also provided recommendation letters 
detailing his extensive experience in the field, and commendations he received from others in the 
industry, as well as articles discussing the Petitioner and his proposed company's operations. 2 
After issuing a request for evidence (RFE) allowing the Petitioner an opportunity to provide additional 
evidence and information relating to the national importance of his proposed endeavor, the Director 
denied the petition. In their decision, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the 
national importance of his endeavor because the record did not show its prospective impact would 
extend beyond his prospective clients to lead to broader implications to the industry or field at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Moreover, the Director determined that the Petitioner did 
not establish that his endeavor had significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer 
substantial positive economic effects as contemplated in Dhanasar. See Dhanasar at 890. And, while 
acknowledging the Petitioner's assertions in the record regarding his company's prospective impact 
on the affordable housing crisis, and other national initiatives, the Director nonetheless concluded that 
the Petitioner had not shown that his endeavor would broadly impact these initiatives at a level 
commensurate with national importance, or otherwise broadly enhance societal welfare. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally disagrees with the Director's conclusions, and asserts that the 
Director did not properly consider the evidence in the record that established the national importance 
of his endeavor, in particular the contents of his business plan. Additionally, he claims that the 
Director imposed a higher burden of proof beyond the preponderance of evidence standard, and 
misapplied the Dhanasar framework. As an examples of this, he asserts that the Director erred by 
concluding that the evidence did not establish the prospective impact ofthe proposed endeavor because 
the Petitioner did not corroborate his ability to invest approximately $50,000 to support his company's 
operations. Specifically, he claims that the requirement to provide corroborating evidence of his 
financial resources is misplaced and is more applicable to investment visas, like the EB-5 immigrant 
visa, and that the Petitioner's financial resources are not relevant to his EB-2 NIW petition. Notably, 
however, while we agree with the Petitioner that it would be inappropriate to evaluate the EB-2 NIW 
petition under the same financial requirements as investment visas, the Petitioner does not establish 
that the Director did apply this standard, as the Director did not require the Petitioner to establish a 
threshold amount of financial support, but rather noted that the Petitioner did not submit evidence 
corroborating their statements in the record regarding the company's startup investment. Moreover, 
while we conclude that the Petitioner's ability to provide the initial business investment claim is more 
relevant to the evaluation of the Petitioner's satisfaction of the second prong, 3 the Petitioner has not 
established that the Director's analysis of his financial support prejudiced him. It is not enough to 
generally assert errors in a decision. The Petitioner must also establish that they were prejudiced by 
any claimed errors. Errors can be overlooked when they had no bearing on the substance of an 
agency's decision. See e.g., Aguilar v. Garland, 60 F.4th 401,407 (8th Cir. 2023) (citing Prohibition 
Juice Co. v. United States Food & Drug Admin., 45 F.4th 8, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2022)). 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
3 See Dhanasar at 890. (explaining that in evaluating whether a Petitioner is well-positioned to advance their proposed 
endeavor "we consider factors including ... a model or plan for future activities") see also 6 USCIS Policy Manual D. 1, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5 (confaming the relevance of evidence of an endeavor's 
financial support to demonstrate whether an individual is well-positioned to advance their endeavor.) 
3 
And the Petitioner contends that, because he established that his company had the significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers, the company established its national importance under Dhanasar. First, the 
Petitioner previously made this same claim to the Director in response to their RFE, which the Director 
addressed in their decision, however instead of acknowledging the Director's conclusions, the 
Petitioner resubmits the same argument verbatim on appeal. Nonetheless, upon review, we agree with 
the Director's analysis. While Dhanasar utilizes the phrase "potential" to employ U.S. workers, it 
does not provide that simply having the potential to create a nominal number of jobs is the standard 
that petitioners must meet to demonstrate the proposed endeavor has national importance. First, the 
Dhanasar precedent offers additional context relating to economics in that it requires the endeavor to 
have "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or [have] other substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." (Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890) (emphasis 
added). Accordingly, the consideration of the employment of U.S. workers should be evaluated as to 
whether it also has a substantial economic effect. Accordingly, we agree with the Director's analysis 
and will not interpret the Dhanasar decision in the manner the Petitioner proposes. 
Moreover, we are also not persuaded by the Petitioner's assertion that the record establishes that his 
endeavor has a significant potential to employ U.S. workers. While we acknowledge the employment 
and revenue projections in his business plan, including the creation of 18 jobs 4 and the generation of 
$5 million in tax revenue over its first five years of operations, the business plan provides little 
explanation and objective basis of these projections. Moreover, even if the endeavor's revenue and 
job creation projections were sufficiently corroborated, they do not establish that the endeavor would 
operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance, nor has the Petitioner sufficiently 
explained and supported with documentary evidence how his proposed employment numbers and 
revenue would impact the area of intended operations on a scale commensurate with national 
importance. On appeal the Petitioner asserts that his business activities will result in tax implications, 
and therefore contribute to local services and fulfill tax obligations. Although any basic economic 
activity has the potential to positively impact a local economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
how the economic activity directly resulting from his proposed endeavor would rise to the level of 
national importance. 
We are also not persuaded in the Petitioner's claims that the Director asserted that "national 
importance can only be demonstrated by presenting evidence" of the significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers in an economically depressed area," as the record does not support this assertion. The 
Director evaluated the Petitioner's claims and established that the evidence did not show that the 
endeavor would result in the substantial economic effects discussed in Dhanasar, concluding that 
although the Petitioner is not required to establish the economic effects are national in scale they must 
still establish that the endeavor will result in substantial economic effects. And as stated, we agree 
4 We also acknowledge the Petitioner's concerns regarding the Director's statements relating to the company's employment 
of 7 workers or potentially 33 workers, because the Petitioner claims that the evidence in the record does not include 
figures reflecting 7 nor 33 hirings. However, we note that based on their projected employment, the record contains a 
letter documenting the company's regional input-output modeling system, in which the writer of the business plan asserts 
the company will generate 7 jobs in the first year of operations, and 33 in its fifth year of operations. Accordingly, we are 
not persuaded by the Petitioner's assertions regarding the thoroughness of the Director's review of the record. Rather, it 
appears the Director considered the larger scope of employment projections in concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the company would result in substantial economic effects. 
4 
with the Director that the evidence in the record does not establish the Petitioner's company will result 
in substantial economic effects. 
Turning to our de novo review of the record, we agree with Director's evaluation of the evidence, and 
conclude it does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has national importance as contemplated under the Dhanasar framework. The standard of 
proof in this proceeding is a 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 I&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 ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We 
therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting 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 
On appeal, the Petitioner continues to rely on the real estate industry in general, as well as the economic 
importance of small and medium-sized companies, but does not establish the broader impact of his 
specific endeavor. And, although the Petitioner's statements in the record reflect his intention to 
provide valuable services to his customers, the record does not support his assertions that his work 
will result in broader implications to the field, beyond the potential benefits to his immediate 
customers. For example, while the Petitioner claims that his company will focus on expanding the 
availability of affordable housing, the business plan in the record does not support this assertion or 
establish how the Petitioner intends to do so, as the business appears to be predominantly serving as a 
consultancy to guide small and medium-sized businesses through real estate transactions. A petitioner 
must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 376. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's assertions that his company 
will impact federal initiatives aimed at addressing the shortage of affordable housing in the United 
States. Moreover, while his endeavor's alignment with federal initiatives may speak to the substantial 
merit of the endeavor, it does not establish the specific endeavor's potential prospective impact 
because the record does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor will meaningfully impact this 
initiative. 
Additionally, the Petitioner contends that his endeavor will result in broader implications to the field 
because he will provide training and publish research on the real estate industry. And, in response to 
the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient details regarding the proposed 
training, the Petitioner asserts that sufficient information was provided in his business plan. Yet, 
instead of pointing to the evidence submitted to the Director, he submits a new addendum to his 
business plan prepared after the denial, which provides details relating to his proposed research as well 
as the content of the training programs he intends to provide. However, this evidence does not satisfy 
the Petitioner's burden. First, because the Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable 
5 
opportunity to provide this evidence and information before the Director, we will not consider it for 
the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(ll) (requiring all requested evidence be submitted 
together at one time); Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (declining to consider 
new evidence submitted on appeal because "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence 
and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial"). Moreover, while 
we recognize the Petitioner's claims that he could provide this training to others in the field, he does 
not explain how any prospective training would impact the field at a level commensurate with 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. Dhanasar 
at 893. Here too, we agree with the Director that the record does not show that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective customers to impact his field 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Additionally, while his business plan discusses providing training as a marketing tool, the Petitioner 
has not provided insight into how much time he plans to dedicate to training or to his research as 
opposed to providing the services detailed in the business plan. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that 
his submission of his past published articles "demonstrates unequivocally" his expertise and 
commitment to conducting new research. Yet, as stated, the Petitioner did not provide an explanation 
of the research he intends to conduct moving forward before the Director, or explain how he would 
disseminate this research to the field. Additionally, while the Petitioner points to a non-precedent case 
involving an assistant professor and researcher who intended to continue publishing and researching 
in their field, we do not find the Petitioner's case sufficiently similar to the case referenced, as that 
Petitioner clearly identified their intent to continue researching and publishing as their endeavor. 
Moreover, the non-precedent decision referenced by the Petitioner was not published as a precedent 
and therefore does not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non­
precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may 
be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and 
applicable law and policy. Here, the Petitioner has not established that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in the non-precedent decision. 
In addition, while the testimonial evidence in the record, such as the recommendation letters, establish 
that the Petitioner has had a successful career within the real estate industry, the letters do not analyze 
the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or offer evidence of its impact, beyond commenting on his 
expertise. A petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second 
prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The 
issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. We conclude that he has not. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong 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. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
6 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7