dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Real Estate Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 13, 2024 In Re: 30212758 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, 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 he merits a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, in the 
national interest. 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 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. An 
advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101 ( a)(32) of the Act. 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a matter of discretion,2 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. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Classification 
We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 3 As such, the only remaining issue is whether 
the Petitioner's endeavor meets the Dhanasar framework for a discretionary national interest waiver. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Id. at 889. The term "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation; a 
petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of 
work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation. For example, while 
engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed endeavor should describe the specific 
projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the person will work, rather than simply listing 
the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
Dhanasar 's first prong focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake 
and its "potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. As such, we will first identify the Petitioner's 
endeavor as shown in the record. Then, we will evaluate the Petitioner's evidence in support of the 
endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to manage a Florida based company, 
which has the dual purpose of improving affordable housing availability for middle- and working-
class individuals in the United States and encouraging foreign investment in the housing sector. His 
company will accomplish its purpose by developing housing projects, including luxury, multifamily, 
2 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). 
3 The Petitioner submitted his diploma and transcripts from his master of business administration degree, which he 
completed atl lin Massachusetts in 2020. 
2 
and affordable housing construction, using funds from Latin American investors. As such, we agree 
with the Director's conclusion that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
Because the endeavor has substantial merit, we tum to whether the proposed endeavor is of national 
importance, as contemplated by Dhanasar. The Director summarized the evidence and analyzed why 
the Petitioner did not establish his endeavor is of national importance. The Director noted that the 
Petitioner did not establish the economic im act or the number of jobs created by his project to build 
a 14-unit multifamily building in Florida.4 The Director found that although the Petitioner 
submitted a letter from an employee of explaining that the Petitioner's 
company hired as a general contractor, the letter lacked details regarding the number ofjobs and 
the economic impact of the project in an economically depressed area. The Director also noted that 
the Petitioner did not sufficiently corroborate his claim of funding more than ten different real estate 
projects or that he intends to raise and grant mortgages to develop more than 20 new apartments in 
Florida.5 The Director agreed that affordable housing is an issue of national importance, but that this 
alone was insufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden, which requires proof, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, that the endeavor's impact goes beyond "his company, its investors, and clientele" to 
affect the real estate industry, writ large, or have the "significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or 
have substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, at a level 
commensurate with national importance." 
Upon de novo review, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision regarding the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the first Dhanasar prong. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also 
Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming 
the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted 
the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that 
appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized 
consideration" to the case). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director abused their discretion by misapplying and 
misunderstanding the law and by finding the evidence insufficient to establish the Petitioner's burden 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Further, he asserts that a "careful reading" of his initial petition, 
and the personal statement submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence, corroborate 
and establish the economic and social impacts of his endeavor. The Petitioner also asserts that 
Dhanasar 's "substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area" 
standard is ill-defined and does not require that a specific number of workers be hired, but that the 
endeavor has the "potential to hire U.S. workers," which the Petitioner supported through objective 
evidence. Lastly, he claims the Director imposed a "novel or otherwise undefined and arbitrary 
4 For brevity, we will not repeat verbatim the Petitioner's two personal statements describing his proposed endeavor, 
however it has been incorporated into our understanding of what his proposed endeavor is and the impacts he claims will 
stem from it. 
5 Specifically, the Director noted "[h]owever, these [four] letters are not supported by other objective documentary 
evidence which shows that the loans were accepted by the applicants, and the type ofreal estate project it funded. Similarly, 
the petitioner did not provide any information or other documentary evidence that demonstrates the number of new jobs 
these projects would create, or the significant positive economic impact these projects would bring, in particular to an 
economically depressed area." 
3 
requirement that is not present in the controlling precedent or relevant regulations in order to serve as 
a bar for approval of a petition." 
We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that imposing a novel or undefined or arbitrary standard or 
requirement would be contrary to law and precedents. However, we disagree with the contention that 
the Director's decision did so. Instead, the Director correctly noted the standard and described the 
deficiency in the evidence to corroborate the Petitioner's claims. For instance, the Director did not 
require the Petitioner to employ a specific number of U.S. workers to meet the "significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers" or "substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area" standards set forth in Dhanasar. Dhanasar at 890. As stated above, the Director 
found the corroborating evidence insufficient because it was not specific and did not provide the level 
of detail needed to determine if his proposed endeavor would have the positive economic effects he 
claims. The Director also noted that some of the corroborating documentation was not translated. On 
appeal, the Petitioner does not address these evidentiary deficiencies. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
The Petitioner contends that his personal statement should be sufficient to meet his burden, without 
further corroboration, of establishing the substantial positive economic effects that will come from his 
proposed endeavor. He asserts that his statement contains all relevant details needed to determine the 
economic impacts of his endeavor, without further corroboration. However, a petitioner's general 
assertions, without more, are insufficient to establish the standard set forth in Dhanasar by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Id. 
Similarly, the Petitioner asserts the Director abused their discretion by requiring that the endeavor's 
"impact must extend beyond his clientele" because, he argues, this requirement lacks a legal basis and 
contradicts Dhanasar's framework by imposing a "geographical scale." We disagree. In Dhanasar, 
we determined that while proposed classroom teaching activities in STEM may have substantial merit 
in relation to U.S. educational interests, such activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of 
an impact in the field of STEM education more broadly, and therefore generally would not establish 
their national importance. Id. at 893. Similarly, here, the Director concluded that although the 
Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit, because he did not establish that his endeavor would 
benefit others apart from his clientele, even against the backdrop of a documented national shortage 
of affordable housing, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the endeavor will impact the field 
ofreal estate development or solve the affordable housing problem. 
Lastly, the Petitioner asserts the Director erred by failing to consider the totality of the evidence and 
specifically cites to the documentation provided to establish the U.S. government's interest in the 
Petitioner's endeavor because it aims to build affordable housing. We acknowledge the articles and 
reports submitted by the Petitioner, which discuss: the need for programs that expand access to capital; 
the dire need for low-income housing for families; the fact that Florida, like many other states, has an 
affordable housing problem; the documented fact that addressing housing insecurity will boost the 
economy; that 49% of Americans say the availability of affordable housing in their community is a 
major problem; and the existence of government programs through Housing and Urban Development 
aimed at addressing the issue of affordable housing as well as Select USA, which encourages domestic 
and foreign investment in the United States to boost the economy. While we acknowledge and 
consider that foreign investment and affordable housing are two important issues affecting our nation's 
4 
economy, the totality of the Petitioner's evidence in this regard speaks to the substantial merit of his 
proposed endeavor but does not establish that his endeavor would have the economic impact he asserts. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. Id. As such, he has not established that "[his] endeavor[] has [the] 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area ... [such that his endeavor is of] national importance." 
Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his 
clientele to impact his field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Further, 
he has not established how his endeavor offers original innovations that will contribute to 
advancements in his field. Additionally, without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the Petitioner has not established that 
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. 
B. Dhanasar 's Second and Third Prongs 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner 's arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third 
prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that 
"courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary 
to the results they reach"); 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). 
As stated, we adopt and affirm the Director 's decision regarding the Petitioner ' s eligibility under the 
first Dhanasar prong. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5