dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 17, 2024 In Re: 33959687 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding 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 I&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 his eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons 
set forth below, we agree that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver 
under the Dhanasar framework, and dismiss the appeal. 
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner plans to work in the United States as president and real estate 
broker for his company,! la "full-service real estate agency catering to both residential 
and commercial clients." According to the Petitioner, his company will offer "comprehensive 
services, including property sales, property management, investment advisory, and rental assistance," 
and will focus on attracting foreign investments to facilitate the development of "large-scale projects 
such as [s]ingle-[t]amily and [m]ulti-[t]amily developments, as well as commercial projects." The 
company will also help clients identify and evaluate land parcels with development potential. As the 
company's president and real estate broker, the Petitioner will specialize in land development and 
investment services, and will "implement[] effective sales strategies, direct[] marketing campaigns .. 
. manag[e] personal, [and develop] trusting client relationships to maximize profits." Accordingly, 
the Petitioner asserted that his endeavor was nationally important because it would attract foreign 
investment to the United States to generate revenues for the local economy and create employment 
opportunities. He also claimed his company would play a crucial role in the economy, as companies 
like his serve "as a cornerstone activity and contribute significantly to the [economy's] overall health." 
And, by focusing on bringing foreign investment into Florida, the Petitioner asserted his company will 
stimulate the real estate sector, increase industry revenues, bolster foreign capital input, and support 
job creation. 
In support of his endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a personal statement, a business plan, a national 
impact analysis, several letters of recommendation from past colleagues and clients attesting to his 
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 
experience and skills in the real estate industry, an expert opinion letter, as well as numerous articles 
and reports discussing the real estate market, real estate brokers and sales agents occupation, and the 
economic impact of foreign direct investment, as well as the affordable housing crisis in the U.S. 
After issuing a request for evidence (RFE) granting the Petitioner an opportunity to provide additional 
evidence and information relating to the prospective impact of his endeavor, the Director denied the 
petition. In their decision, the Director concluded that, while the record established the substantial 
merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, it did not establish its national importance because the 
prospective impact of the Petitioner's endeavor would not 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 889. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly consider the evidence in the record 
that established the national importance of his endeavor, including his personal statement, business 
plan, national impact analysis, as well as the industry reports and articles. Additionally, he claims that 
"[b ]y insisting on evidence of [the] direct impact[ of his proposed endeavor] before [its] 
implementation, the Director overlooked the inherent challenges of forecasting concrete outcomes for 
endeavors not yet implemented," and by failing to consider the indirect benefits outlined in the record, 
the Director imposed a higher burden of proof beyond the preponderance of evidence standard. We 
disagree. 
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" trne. Matter ofChawathe, 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 of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Upon 
a de novo review of the record, we see no error in the Director's evaluation of the evidence, as 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. Moreover, we disagree with the 
Petitioner's assertion that the Director erred in requesting evidence establishing his endeavor's direct 
impact. The Director did not require the Petitioner to establish that his endeavor had already resulted 
in broader implications to his field or already resulted in substantial economic benefits, but rather that 
the claimed broader implications be directly attributable to his endeavor. We agree that the Dhanasar 
framework does not require a petitioner to establish that their endeavor is more likely than not to 
succeed, however unsubstantiated claims are not sufficient to establish national importance, and the 
prospective impact claimed by the Petitioner must be directly attributable to his specific endeavor. 2 
Here, the Petitioner continues to rely on the cumulative impact of the real estate industry and foreign 
direct investment rather than explaining how his specific endeavor will result in broader implications 
commensurate with national importance. Likewise, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in 
failing to consider the articles and reports in the record that "outlin[ e] the expected economic and 
social impacts of [his] proposed endeavor," claiming that these articles highlight the economic and 
2 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)( l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-paii-f-chapter-5. 
3 
social impacts of his proposed endeavor, but the articles in the record discuss the cumulative benefits 
of his field, and do not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor. In this regard, several of the 
Petitioner's claims of national importance could reasonably apply to any individual working in real 
estate development, but Congress did not provide a blanket exemption for this occupation with respect 
to the job offer and labor certification requirement. 
We agree with the Director's conclusion that, while the evidence in the record, including the industry 
articles and reports, establish the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor, the Petitioner has not 
established that his endeavor has national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar. 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 claims that his endeavor is nationally important because it will stimulate 
economic growth in the United States by increasing foreign investment into the real estate sector, and 
in particular in the Florida region. Additionally, he claims that his company will have broad impact 
to both the real estate sector and the U.S. economy, beyond the immediate benefits to his company 
and its clients. And the Petitioner also claims that the Director erred in ignoring the indirect benefits 
of his proposed endeavor, including its societal and economic benefits. However, rather than 
identifying the specific impact his company will have, the Petitioner continues to rely on the 
cumulative benefits of foreign direct investment, claiming that he provided "specific data and statistics 
showing the substantial economic benefits of bringing foreign real estate investment." Yet, this 
evidence speaks to the substantial merit of his endeavor, rather than its national importance. For 
example, the Petitioner supports his claims by relying on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recognition 
of foreign investment as instrumental in promoting economic growth, as well as the evidence in the 
record discussing the cumulative economic impact of foreign direct investment in the real estate sector 
as well as Florida's robust investment market, but the Petitioner has not established how his company 
will meaningfully impact this market on a level commensurate with national importance. As stated, 
when determining national importance, the industry alone is not sufficient to establish national 
importance, instead we focus on the broader implications of "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that his "extensive background in real estate and foreign 
investments plays a pivotal role in facilitating foreign investment transactions," and claims that the 
Director erred in disregarding the evidence that establish he had already "made significant 
contributions to facilitating real estate transactions for foreign investors," including the letters of 
recommendation. Yet, while the letters of recommendation may establish the Petitioner's varying 
experience within the real estate industry, they provide little probative value in establishing the 
national importance of his endeavor as they primarily focus on his prior experience. We recognize 
that the Petitioner has had a successful career, but a petitioner's expertise and record of success are 
considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor 
4 
to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
Likewise, we reviewed the letters of intent to invest by the Petitioner's prospective clients, and 
conclude that these letters do not support the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor, as the Petitioner has not shown how these investments, even ifrealized, will result in broader 
implications to his field or the substantial economic effects discussed in Dhanasar. For example, 
while one investor claims that his intent to invest is contingent on only working with the Petitioner to 
facilitate his investment, the Petitioner did not show how this specific investment would impact the 
intended area of operations, or otherwise impact the industry or economy as claimed. 
Similarly, we have reviewed the expert opinion letter and conclude that, contrary to the Petitioner's 
assertions, the expert opinion letter does not establish the national importance of his endeavor. For 
instance, while the expert discusses the Petitioner's "rich experience," and asserts that his in-depth 
understanding of the real-estate market will lead his company to success, they do not establish that the 
Petitioner's individual work will result in broader implications to his field or will result in substantial 
economic impact commensurate with national importance. Instead, they focus on the impact of the 
real estate market and foreign investments generally. For example, while the expert opinion letter 
claims his endeavor will result in broad societal benefits, and impacts national initiatives including the 
promotion of home ownership, the expert supports this assertion by relying primarily on the broad 
benefits brought by the real estate industry, rather than the prospective benefits of the Petitioner's 
specific endeavor. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, 
professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of 
Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The submission of letters from 
experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter ofD-R-
' 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert 
testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). 
Likewise, the Petitioner relies on the affordable housing crisis in the United States to establish the 
national importance of his endeavor, stating that his endeavor aligns with national housing strategies. 
However, 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. Moreover, 
the record does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor will meaningfully impact this initiative. 
We also agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that the endeavor would have a 
"a significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or otherwise reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The Petitioner relies on the economic 
impact ofreal estate development in general, pointing, for example, to models estimating the economic 
impact of the development of 100 new homes, but the Petitioner does not establish that his specific 
endeavor will result in "substantial positive economic effects" rather than relying on the impact of 
development in general. In other words, while 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've 
also reviewed the business plan, which states that, by its fifth year of operation, the company intends 
to employ 8 employees, have a total annual payroll expense of $328,542, and generate total annual 
5 
sales of $1,068,806. Notably, however, the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for 
the basis of these projections. And, even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were 
properly explained and supported with evidence, they do not establish that the endeavor would operate 
on a scale rising to the level of national importance, as the Petitioner has not explained how these 
proposed employment numbers and revenue will impact the area of intended operations. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would be of 
national importance, and he therefore does not meet the requirements of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
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 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments under Dhanasar's second and 
third prongs as well as a determination as to whether the Petitioner has met the requirements of EB-2 
classification. 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 
ofL-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. 
6