dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Real Estate Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 14, 2025 In Re: 33960348 
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 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 the record did not establish 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be 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 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 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. 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. Our precedent decision in Matter ofDhanasar, 
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 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in 
concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature) . 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for the requested EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional but did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the 
Dhanasar framework. Specifically, the Director concluded that, while the Petitioner demonstrated his 
proposed endeavor had substantial merit, it did not also have national importance and therefore did 
not satisfy Dhanasar 's first prong. We agree. In particular, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
submitted sufficient evidence regarding his proposed endeavor's substantive nature such that we can 
even evaluate whether it has national importance. 2 And since we cannot even conduct that analysis, 
we are certainly incapable of concluding it in the Petitioner's favor. The Petitioner, therefore, has not 
established that his proposed endeavor holds national importance, thereby precluding a finding that he 
satisfies Dhanasar 's first prong. 
The precise nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear. In his initial filing, the Petitioner 
submitted a professional plan and personal statement explaining he planned to work as a real estate 
developer "to help remediate the housing shortage by developing affordable, workforce, and senior 
housing" in Florida. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted 
a new personal statement and business plan. He claimed that his endeavor would be "to work through 
my company, _________ offering real estate development and project management, 
stemming from technical guidance from understanding and collaborating with engineering 
professionals to negotiating contracts and managing personnel with a focus on projects in the 
affordable and senior housing sector." In his business plan, the Petitioner stated his company would 
"provide ground-up development, renovation, and adaptive reuse of affordable, workforce, and senior 
housing to rent them to the low-income or underprivileged individuals and families across the U.S." 
He further claimed that his company "will collaborate with investors to co-invest ... and handle the 
construction, financial asset management, and property management of the projects." 
In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the nature of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear. The information he provided in his RFE response did not 
clarify his initially described proposed endeavor of working as a real estate developer, but rather 
expanded the focus and scope of his future work altogether. In his RFE response, the Petitioner cast 
a wide net extending from affordable housing development, to remodeling houses, to property 
management, but he did not provide sufficient details on how he plans to accomplish each of the stated 
objectives within these three discrete components. 3 Consequently, we are left with significant 
concerns about the broad and ill-defined scope and nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
2 While we may not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 While the Petitioner referenced additional services he will provide within these components, such as senior care, financial 
assistance, and real estate investment services, the specific nature of his future work remains ambiguous and vague for the 
reasons discussed below. 
2 
For example, the record is unclear as to whether the Petitioner plans to rent or sell the houses in his 
future portfolio. While his business plan states his company will "specialize in the development and 
renovations of houses and multifamily properties with the goal ofrenting the properties to low-income 
or underprivileged individuals and families and seniors throughout the U.S.," the plan also suggests 
he intends to sell properties to medium-income families and "low-income households interested in 
building high-quality, environmentally friendly, and affordable, low-cost homes." 
If, in fact, the Petitioner plans to rent the housing units, the record is also unclear as to whether his 
company itself will rent the units or would manage and rent them on another entity's behalf. For 
instance, while the business plan claims that the Petitioner will "become a Section 8 landlord in order 
to further benefit the low-income community in the U.S.," he also claims he will offer property 
management services, including account management, regular property inspections, 24/7 
maintenance, cleaning, facility recommendation, emergency services, and marketing programs. 
The record is similarly unclear as to whether the Petitioner's renovation services would be limited to 
the affordable housing units contained within his portfolio, or whether he plans to offer his services to 
any interested individual. For example, while his business plan states his company will "remodel 
houses and multifamily units with the aim to rent them to low-income families and seniors," the plan 
also indicates that he intends to "fulfill the current demand for remodeling services," which would 
"enhance homeowners' properties, thereby increasing house prices and more affluent communities 
and contributing to higher consumer spending levels and, ultimately, economic growth." This appears 
to indicate that the Petitioner also plans to provide general renovation services, which are seemingly 
unrelated to his stated objectives of developing real estate for purposes of affordable housing. In any 
event, the lack of clarity regarding the endeavor's actual focus prevents us from conducting a 
meaningful analysis under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
The Petitioner also described other aspects of his proposed endeavor in his RFE response that further 
added to the lack of clarity. For example, while the Petitioner's initial filing stated that he planned to 
develop affordable housing units for seniors, his RFE response expanded his proposed endeavor to 
provide independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing facilities for seniors with "access to 
social and recreational activities and various support services such as meals, transportation, and 
healthcare." We note that these activities, particularly the provision of healthcare services, are 
markedly different from his initially described endeavor of real estate development. Moreover, the 
Petitioner provides little detail on how his real estate development company would be involved in 
offering these services including, for example, how much of his endeavor would be devoted to 
managing these facilities and what his specific role would be in implementing them. 
Further, the Petitioner claims his endeavor will help seniors age safely, comfortably, and affordably 
in their homes and communities "[b]]y expanding the supply of aging-friendly housing options, rental 
assistance, and home repairs and modifications." However, he does not explain the details of any 
rental assistance programs his company would provide, including who would qualify, for what 
amount, where the financial assistance funds would originate, or any other parameters of the program. 
He also does not elaborate on what "home repairs and modifications" his company would provide, to 
whom, and under what circumstances, as well as whether these services would be provided for those 
renting the units or also for seniors owning their homes. 
3 
The Petitioner also vaguely asserts that he will provide a "comprehensive set of services dedicated to 
investment in the U.S. real estate market," including "provid[ing] financial assistance services for 
individual and corporate investors aiming to enter the real estate market." But, the Petitioner does not 
explain what these "financial assistance services" would be, including, for example, the program's 
parameters, who would qualify, and how he plans to fund the financial assistance. We consider these 
significant omissions. 
Lastly, it is unclear who the Petitioner's clients will be-whether private individuals who are buying 
property, private individuals who are renting property, investors, government entities, or others. For 
example, while the business plan reflects that the company's targets are low-income households and 
senior citizens, the Petitioner later also states he will build properties for medium-income families. In 
short, the record as it currently stands does not make clear who the proposed endeavor stands to 
benefit. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as described, is expansive and includes, even within its main 
components, activities such as: hiring and training his staff; finding, developing, and renovating 
properties; offering property management services; providing residential senior care; offering 
financial assistance services; and offering real estate investment services. The Petitioner has not 
adequately explained whether he plans to perform these activities concurrently or consecutively, or 
how much time he will devote to each activity. Even considering he will hire employees to assist him, 
any one of these activities could constitute a full-time job. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
detail on how he specifically plans to accomplish any one of these components of his endeavor, much 
less all of them. This information is material, as each of these activities would necessarily produce 
different impacts. For instance, the Petitioner's activities managing senior care services would be 
different from his activities providing financial assistance services, which would also differ from 
engaging in real estate development. Yet, each of these activities appear equally possible under the 
proposed endeavor, as described. 
We acknowledge the importance of affordable, workforce, and senior housing and do not question the 
merits of developing such properties. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained in 
adequate detail the specifics of his proposed endeavor, including how he plans to accomplish it, in 
order to meet his burden to demonstrate his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. 
But, even if we were to set aside the deficiencies discussed above and look at the evidence submitted, 
the record would still be insufficient to support the Petitioner's claims of his endeavor's national 
importance. For instance, the Petitioner has not adequately explained how his proposed endeavor 
would be different from, or an improvement over, other affordable housing development projects, 
particularly in Florida (assuming affordable housing would, in fact, be one of the endeavor's foci). 
Although he briefly mentioned his intention to use prefabricated modular construction technology, 
which he claims would provide his company with a "considerable advantage" in production speed and 
cost, he has provided little explanation regarding how he would implement this plan, including for 
example, where he would build these units withinl I 
Moreover, as referenced in the Petitioner's professional plan, Florida is "one of the fastest-growing 
real estate markets in the United States" with significant housing shortages. The Petitioner contends 
4 
I 
his endeavor will "revitalize U.S. neighborhoods, supply the demand for affordable housing solutions, 
reduce homelessness in the country, and bring highly beneficial economic benefits to the overall U.S. 
economy." However, the Petitioner has provided little detail on how he will specifically accomplish 
these objectives in Florida's competitive market. For example, while the business plan states he will 
purchase land to construct affordable housing in I I and its surrounding areas, there is little 
evidence in the record that he has identified any property, purchased any property, or otherwise pointed 
to any meaningful steps taken in his endeavor to develop affordable housing units. 4 Although the 
business plan states that the Petitioner's company will develop 60 workforce housing units inl 
Florida in 2023, and 180 workforce and affordable housing units in 2024, and will have hired 13 
employees by 2024, the Petitioner has provided little documentary evidence to support these claims 
of beneficial economic and societal impacts his endeavor would reportedly have. Likewise, while the 
Petitioner alleges that he will personally invest $250,000 into his company, he has not corroborated 
his assertion. 5 General conclusory statements, without more, are insufficient to carry the Petitioner's 
burden of proof. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Again, without more information about the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, including how he 
plans to implement it in the United States, the Petitioner has not adequately established his proposed 
endeavor in a manner sufficient for us to determine that his work in the United States would have 
national importance. In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we 
must rely on the specific proposed endeavor to determine whether it meets the national importance 
requirement under Dhanasar 's first prong. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance 
of evidence that he is qualified for the benefit sought and that burden has not been met here. Id. at 
375. 
Finally, while we acknowledge the Petitioner's appellate arguments, they do not persuade us of any 
error in the Director's decision or that the Petitioner has, in fact, established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts, among other things, that the Director erroneously 
applied a "higher standard of proof," disregarded the evidence, and did not properly analyze the totality 
of the record. He also alleges that the Director "arbitrarily and capriciously" ignored two expert 
opinions and generally erred in finding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was not nationally 
important. 
With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that he meets each 
eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 375-76. In 
other words, a petitioner must show that what he claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. 
To determine whether a petitioner has met his 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. at 376. Here, we find no error in the Director's evaluation of the record. The Director 
4 Although the Petitioner submitted several real estate development proposals, they appear to have been created as part of 
a graduate degree project and not in relation to his proposed endeavor. However, even ifwe were to take them into account, 
there is little evidence these proposals have been meaningfully considered or accepted for development by any 
stakeholders. 
5 This also has implications for determining how well-positioned the Petitioner is for the purposes of satisfying Dhanasar 's 
second prong. Because the petition cannot be approved for the above stated reasons, we will not address the second prong 
further, other than to place the Petitioner on notice that he should be prepared to address this in any future filings. 
5 
properly considered and weighed all the evidence, but appropriately concluded that the Petitioner did 
not establish his proposed endeavor's national importance. 
We are also unpersuaded by the Petitioner's contention that, because the Director did not raise grounds 
to contest the authority of the experts' opinions, we should defer to it. As a matter of discretion, we 
may use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it 
is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the 
benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. 
In this case, the Director considered the ex ert opinion letters submitted by Dr. I an 
associate professor at and la clinical associate professor 
at __________________ but did not find they were sufficient, alone, 
to demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance. We agree. As explained above, the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor is not sufficiently clear or detailed in how he will specifically 
accomplish his broad objectives to "strengthen the U.S. housing market and alleviate the housing 
shortage in the U.S., improving the overall quality of life in the specific communities across the 
nation." While the letters address the importance of affordable and senior housing and so broadly 
speculate that the Petitioner's work in these areas would be nationally important, without more, the 
letters in and of themselves do not provide adequate corroborating evidence to support the endeavor's 
alleged broader impacts to the industry, economy, or nation. 
Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information regarding his proposed endeavor, we 
cannot conclude that he meets Dhanasar 's first prong. Since the identified reasons for dismissal are 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining issues and 
arguments concerning whether he has established eligibility under the remaining two Dhanasar 
prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("As a general rule courts and agencies are 
not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reach."). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We, 
therefore, conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6