dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 17, 2024 In Re: 31263225 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in real estate, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
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 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 that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner merited a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
petitions. Dhanasar states that 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; 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional. The 
remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner's business plan describes his proposed endeavor as follows: 
[The Petitioner] will bring his experience and skills to the U.S. He will advise foreign 
investors interested in the country's real estate sector, bringing international 
investments to America and fomenting the construction of affordable housing in the 
country. 
[The Petitioner] will attract Brazilian and Portuguese investors to develop new real 
estate projects in the U.S. and connect these individuals to U.S. partners operating in 
the construction sector. Through his Company, [the Petitioner] will serve as a bridge 
between foreign investors and operators in the U.S. real estate market for the 
development of multiple projects. Therefore, [the Company] will not be a typical 
brokerage company, but rather a business dedicated to fostering foreign investment in 
the U.S. real estate sector. [The Petitioner] will organize various events to present 
investment opportunities in the U.S. to Brazilian and Portuguese individuals, 
showcasing them the advantages of investing in the country, including the 
diversification of their assets through investments in a strong currency: the U.S. dollar. 
The Director concluded that, while the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, he did 
not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor had national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that the Director erred in this conclusion and contends the provided evidence demonstrates the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his endeavor in order 
to establish his eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
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. 
Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. 
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 
2 
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. Further, 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to reports and articles provided in support of the petition discussing 
the housing market in the United States. While this material provides general information related to 
the field in which the Petitioner intended to work, it does not provide insight into his plan to operate a 
real estate investment consultancy company or show how this specific endeavor would have a potential 
prospective impact of national importance. 
The Petitioner's business plan provides an overview of his plans for his company's operation and 
describes positions he will hire, potential marketing efforts, and profit projections. However, the 
business plan is not supported by objective evidence to demonstrate how his company would have a 
prospective national impact on the field or on an economy of any scale. For example, the business 
plan anticipates hiring 20 individuals, accruing $753,829 in payroll expenses, and generating 
$1,150,318 in sales by the conclusion of its fifth year of operation. The plan further states that the 
Petitioner's "ability to attract vast sums from foreign investors will continue to bring substantial 
benefits to the U.S. economy as a whole," and it anticipates "attracting a total of approximately $85 
million in foreign funds into the United States" over five years. The plan does not, however, provide 
an objective basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence 
sufficient to demonstrate that it is likely the company will have a positive national economic impact 
or a national prospective impact within the field. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The business plan also includes a Regional Input-Output Modeling Systems (RIMS 11) analysis to 
demonstrate the company's potential impact on the region in which it intended to operate. It states 
that the multipliers for the category of Real Estate Industry in Florida project "a final-demand impact 
in employment, equivalent to 280 jobs in Year 5" and revenues of $1,150.318. The Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated that RIMS II's broad category of "Real Estate Industry in Florida" properly 
captures the potential impact of his proposed endeavor to attract foreign investment to develop 
housing. He has therefore not shown that these general statistics on a broad category of economic 
activities substantiate the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Moreover, the RIMS II 
modeling tool relies on various assumptions, including those made by the Petitioner, leaving the 
prospective impact of his proposed company uncertain. The Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor based on its potential job creation or 
impact on the U.S. economy. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would serve to impact the 
industry or field more broadly, rising to the level of national importance. For instance, it is not clear 
how the Petitioner's operation of a company seeking foreign investment in real estate would have a 
positive economic impact at the level of "substantial economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 
3 
Id. at 890. While the business plan references a report stating that the United States "faces one of the 
most alarming talent crunches of any country worldwide," we observe that fluctuating opportunities 
within the general labor market do not demonstrate that the Petitioner's endeavor stands to have an 
impact on the real estate industry or otherwise have implications rising to the level of national 
importance. Finally, the business plan asserts that his "background and his willingness to transfer his 
skills and knowledge to the U.S. market will help create a qualified real estate workforce" because he 
will be "transferring his knowledge to local professionals." 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. Similarly, here, the record does not sufficiently 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's individual training efforts would have the national impact 
contemplated by Dhanasar. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the nation. Specifically, he 
has not shown that his business stands to provide substantial economic benefits to any particular 
locality or to the United States overall. While the business plan explains in general terms that his 
company's services would benefit the U.S. economy because foreign investments "can stimulate 
economic growth by injecting capital into the economy," that reasoning is speculative and not based 
on any objective evidence related to his specific proposed endeavor. As such, the business plan does 
not demonstrate that the prospective benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated 
by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner states of his proposed endeavor, "The rationale underlying this project stems from the 
increasing unaffordability of housing for millions of individuals in the United States." Although the 
Petitioner claims that his company will positively benefit the United States by increasing development 
to address housing shortages, it is not clear how a business of the size and scope described in the 
business plan would raise funding in amounts that would address housing shortages for a number of 
people that would constitute an impact on a national level. Also unclear is how a business employing 
twenty people by its fifth year of operation would positively impact a given region in which either its 
employees or clients are located. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to show that he 
would employ a significant population of workers in a particular region, nor has he shown that his 
proposed endeavor would offer a region or its population substantial economic benefits through 
employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue. 
We note that the Petitioner emphasizes that his proposed endeavor aligns with White House initiatives 
to increase the availability of affordable housing in the United States. While the notion of addressing 
affordable housing issues that affect individuals nationwide may align with the goals of certain White 
House initiatives, the Petitioner has not provided evidence that he has developed an actionable concept 
that would prospectively benefit the United States at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unsubstantiated, and the endeavor is 
not proportionate to White House initiatives intended to have a national impact. Again, as per the 
Dhanasar adjudicative framework, we focus not on the national importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which the individual will work, but on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. 
4 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies 
are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
decision); 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5