dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Real Estate Investment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 08, 2024 In Re: 31111590 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a real estate investment consultant, 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 proposed endeavor was of national importance or that it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and labor certification. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 
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." 
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: 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
• 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. 
II. ADV AN CED DEGREE 
The Petitioner asserts that he qualifies for an advanced degree professional classification by virtue of 
foreign education that he claims is equivalent to a U.S. Juris Doctor degree, in accordance with 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. After reviewing the record, we disagree with the Director's 
determination. 
As noted above, a petition for an advanced degree professional must include evidence that a petitioner 
possesses a "United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that 
of baccalaureate." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). In order to show that a petitioner holds a qualifying 
advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied by "[a ]n official academic record showing that the 
[individual] has a United States advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). 
The Petitioner graduated from the in 1993 with a Titulo 
de Licenciado en Derecho. The transcript presented reflects that the Petitioner completed four and a 
half years of study. He also presented an evaluation of his academic record from I I a 
Senior Evaluator at Silvergate Evaluations. The evaluation states that the Petitioner's Titulo de 
Licenciado en Derecho is equivalent to the U.S. Juris Doctor degree. As a matter of discretion, we 
may use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory. Matter ofCaron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N 
Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). Still, 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. The 
evaluator, in part, based his analysis on his review of the Electronic Database for Global Education 
(EDGE),2 an online resource regarding foreign educational equivalencies. The evaluation states that 
according to EDGE the Petitioner's degree "represents attainment of a level of education comparable 
to a first professional degree .. .in the United States, namely a Juris Doctor." Upon review, we do not 
agree the evaluation Petitioner provided. 
We reviewed EDGE. It does not support the evaluator's statement. According to EDGE, a Licenciado 
en Derecho (Licentiate in Law) is "awarded upon completion of a 4-year, 4 ½-year, or 5-year program 
of university study in law" and "represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a 
bachelor's degree in the United States." Thus, though we agree the Petitioner can establish he has a 
bachelor's degree, the record lacks evidence that the Petitioner has obtained a bachelor's degree and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 EDGE was created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). 
AACRAO is a non-profit, voluntary association of more than 14,000 professionals in more than 40 
countries. See AACRAO, Who We Are, https://www.aacrao.org/who-we-are. 
2 
an advanced degree as needed to qualify as an advanced degree professional. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
( defining the term "advanced degree" as "any United States academic or professional degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate"). 
We observe that as the Petitioner has demonstrated he has the equivalent of a bachelor's degree, he 
could still qualify as an advanced degree profession if he can show at least five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). This evidence must be in the form of letters from 
current or former employers and must include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific 
description of the duties performed by the individual. Although the Petitioner has presented several 
employment verification letters from former employers, none of them comport entirely with the 
requirements and are thus not sufficient to establish five years of experience. 
In light of the above, we disagree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has established 
that he is an advanced degree professional in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). Nonetheless, 
because the Petitioner was not on notice of these issues, this does not form the basis of our dismissal. 
The Petitioner must address and resolve this in any further filings. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Regarding his claim of eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
statement submitted with the initial application, states that he intends to establish 
___________ a "platform, to link business opportunities in residential, multifamily, 
commercial, and industrial real estate, in the United States to individual investors in Latin America." The 
Petitioner will act as the company's principal consultant. According to the Petitioner's business plan, 
investors and real estate developers will use the company's website to find each other and create business 
relationships. The company will then provide coaching and support for investors through the financial, 
legal, and administrative processes of making an investment in the United States. 
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 
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 
3 
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. 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. In Dhanasar we detennined 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
Here, the Petitioner has not described how his business providing consulting for foreign investors in 
U.S. real estate via a digital platform will have a broader impact on the field beyond the individual 
clients he will assist. The appeal brief argues that his proposed endeavor is nationally important 
because it "will benefit the foreign investment in the US on behalf of Latin American businesses." 
Nonetheless, this statement neglects to explain how the company's goal facilitating foreign investment 
will impact the real estate field at a nationally important level. The brief further contends that because 
the endeavor involves technology and digitization, which are subjects of U.S. government initiatives 
and regulations, the endeavor is nationally important. This argument ignores the requirements in 
Dhanasar. It is not the importance of the field that determines an endeavor's national importance, but 
rather how the specific endeavor will impact the field on a level commensurate with national 
importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The record presented does not provide sufficient support for his arguments either. 3 The Petitioner 
submitted articles and reports on U.S. real estate, technology, America's labor shortage, and foreign 
investment. While speaking to its substantial merit, these articles and reports do not address the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or how it would have broad implications in the real estate 
fields in a way that implicates national importance. 4 
Furthermore, he has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may have 
national importance. Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. 
Here, however, the Petitioner has not established that his business will have a nationally important 
impact. Even if we assumed all the projections in the Petitioner's business plan were accurate, it lacks 
evidence demonstrating that the specific endeavor's impact would be nationally important. The 
business plan states that the proposed endeavor will "contribute to the nation's initiatives in attracting 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. We note that the letter 
of interest from and the article entitled "Understanding the country's housing shortage" originated after 
petition's filing. A petitioner must meet all the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l), (12). 
4 The Petitioner also presented letters ofrecommendations from former co-workers and associates, educational certificates, 
employment verification letters, and various evidence documenting his work history and achievements. However, the 
Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past 
accomplishments and experiences, not the specific endeavor's potential impact in real estate. Generally, this type of 
evidence is more appropriate in the second prong when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
4 
foreign investment" and "increase the success rate of [the Petitioner's] clients' investment activities, 
ultimately supporting U.S. businesses in the long run." Yet the Petitioner did not provide 
documentation to support these generalized statements that his consulting services will result in 
substantial economic growth on the level of national importance. The Petitioner's business plan 
anticipates that the Petitioner's company will reach a total of 10 employees in year five, and employee 
expenses will increase from $164,500 in year one to $621,284 in year five. He also projected grossing 
$285,000 in sales in year one, increasing to $1,310,000 in year five. The record though lacks evidence 
demonstrating that the projections claimed will result in substantial economic growth on the level of 
national importance. It does not illustrate how creating 10 jobs and generating the claimed sales 
numbers, as projected in the business plan, would have substantial positive economic effects on the 
level of national importance. The business plan does not contain figures regarding the foreign direct 
investment it projects from clients. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has therefore not 
provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of his proposed 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Accordingly, the record does not sufficiently 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally 
important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond his clients to affect the region 
or nation more broadly. 26 l&N Dec. at 893. He has not shown that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As 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 "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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5