dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Real Estate Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 13, 2024 In Re: 30518664 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner is an entrepreneur, he will occupy the position of a general operations manager, and he 
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 (NIW) 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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding that the record did not establish that he merits a discretionary waiver of the job 
offer requirement in the national interest. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate 
eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (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 an NIW, 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the 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 NIW petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 
grant an NIW 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. 
The purely discretionary determination of whether to grant or deny an NIW rests solely with USCIS. 
See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining four U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals in 
concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny an NIW to be discretionary in nature). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As an initial matter, we note that the Petitioner asserts on appeal through counsel that in denying the 
petition, the Director "imposed novel substantive and evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth 
in the regulations." However, the Petitioner does not offer a detailed analysis explaining the particular 
ways in which the Director "imposed novel substantive and evidentiary requirements" in denying the 
petition, supported by pertinent law or regulation. 
Also, the Petitioner generally alleges the Director "did not apply the proper standard of proof in this 
case, instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applied the law, to the detriment of the 
[Petitioner]." The standard of proof governing the immigration benefit requests is the "preponderance 
of evidence." Chawathe, 25 I& N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met his 
burden under the preponderance standard, we evaluate whether a petitioner's claims are "more likely 
than not" or "probably" true, but also consider the quality (including relevance, probative value, and 
credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
Here, the Petitioner does not further explain or identify any specific instance in which the Director 
applied a standard of proof other than the preponderance of evidence in denying the petition. Without 
documentary evidence to support the claims, counsel's assertions in a brief do not constitute evidence, 
nor will they satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. Matter ofArambula-Bravo, 28 I&N Dec. 388, 
396 (BIA 2021 ); Matter ofJJ Rodriguez, 27 I&N Dec. 762, 765-66 (BIA 2020); see also Matter of 
S-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief: motion, or Notice of Appeal are not 
evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight"). 
We therefore dispose of these overarching claims and now move to address the merits of the NIW 
claims. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to continue his entrepreneurial venture acting as the company's 
director. The organization is a real estate management company acting as an intermediary between 
property owners and those seeking to rent or purchase properties. The Petitioner indicated when he 
filed the petition that the organization held a portfolio of 50 properties with a goal to increase that 
number to 200 properties within 5 years. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance (Collectively Dhanasar 's First Prong) 
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. 
2 
The Director determined the Petitioner failed to sufficiently support his claims regarding the positive 
cumulative effects on real estate work in the United States, and in tum the record did not reflect his 
activities would impact the field ofreal estate on a broader level. Discussing the Petitioner's business 
plan, the Director acknowledged the number of Florida properties his company had accumulated but 
decided that did not indicate the proposed endeavor would have national or global implications within 
the industry, nor that it would result in substantial positive economic effects. 
Responding to the portion of the Director's denial relating to Dhanasar 's prong one requirements, the 
Petitioner's appeal brief, while ostensibly lengthy, nevertheless does not effectively contest the 
reasons for that determination. A summary dismissal of an appeal is appropriate when the filing party 
only asserts the underlying trier of fact came to the wrong conclusion or expresses general 
disagreement with the lower decision and "fails to specify the reasons for the appeal." Matter of 
Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354, 355-56 (BIA 1986); Matter of Davis, 20 I&N Dec. 536, 537-38 (BIA 
1992); Matter ofKeyte, 20 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (BIA 1990); Matter ofLozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637,639 
(BIA 1988); Matter of Lodge, 19 I&N Dec. 500, 501 (BIA 1987); Matter of Holguin, 13 T&N Dec. 
423, 425 (BIA 1969). Where a question oflaw is presented, supporting authority should be included, 
and where the dispute is on the facts, there should be a discussion of the particular details contested. 
Valencia, 19 T&N Dec. at 355. This Petitioner's appeal brief is the type that is situated within the 
realm of those warranting a summary dismissal. The Petitioner cannot overcome the Director's 
conclusions made under Dhanasar 's first prong without specifically contesting them. 
Nevertheless, we will address some of the elements pertaining to Dhanasar 's first prong within the 
appeal brief. In the brief, the Petitioner indicated that in addition to helping the business industry in 
the United States, he can help U.S. businesses develop cross-border projects by facilitating business 
operations of U.S. entities seeking to invest and develop business relations, particularly in Latin 
America. First, the Petitioner does not tie in any cross-border projects with his proposed endeavor, 
nor does he sufficiently describe the global or national implications of such projects in the real estate 
brokerage or property management industries. Second, the Petitioner does not detail the types of 
cross-border projects he would engage in, so it's not clear that these would relate to real estate in any 
manner. Stated differently, this appellate claim bears no effect on the Petitioner's eligibility. 
Also, we conclude the Petitioner offered conflicting statements regarding the proposed endeavor's 
focus. The Petitioner's appeal brief reflects he "has gained extensive experience, skills, and contacts 
in the field of Business and Operations Management and knowledge that will allow me to help the 
food services sector in the United States." But the food services sector is unrelated to his stated 
proposed endeavor ofreal estate brokerage or property management. As a result, even if the Petitioner 
had substantively contested the Director's adverse findings under the first prong, it would be necessary 
for him to resolve this inconsistent information in the record. Such an amelioration must be 
demonstrated through the submission of relevant, independent, and objective evidence that illustrates 
which facts are true. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
For the remainder of the appeal brief's first prong arguments, the Petitioner places little to no focus on 
the actual proposed endeavor, which is the issue at hand under Dhanasar 's first prong. Instead, he 
discusses his skills and abilities as a general and operations manager, or he refers to industry reports 
and their importance within the relevant industry instead of to the proposed endeavor. When 
3 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the overall field, 
industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, USCIS must focus on the "the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In summary, we conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the Dhanasar precedent decision's first 
prong, and he has not demonstrated eligibility for an NIW. 
B. Dhanasar 's Second and Third Prongs 
As we explain above, Dhanasar 's second and third prongs require the Petitioner to demonstrate he is 
eligible for an NIW meeting additional requirements. But because the Petitioner has not established 
that his proposed endeavor satisfies the Dhanasar framework's first prong, he is not eligible for an 
NIW and further discussion of the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. 
Consequently, we will not address and we reserve the Petitioner's remaining appellate arguments. 
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 332 (2022) (citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) 
(finding agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary 
to the ultimate decision)); see also Matter of Chen, 28 I&N Dec. 676, 677 n.l, 678 (BIA 2023) 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4