dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 24, 2024 In Re: 31869774 
Appeal of Nebraska 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 either a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that, while the record 
established the Petitioner was eligible for the requested EB-2 immigrant classification as an advanced 
degree professional, it did not establish the Petitioner was an individual with exceptional ability or that 
she was eligible for the requested national interest waiver. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&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 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 2 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 3 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise and will 
substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United 
States. 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. 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, 4 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks EB-2 immigrant classification to continue to work in the United States in the 
occupation of real estate brokers and sales agents through her company, 
I I The Director determined the record established that she is an advanced degree 
professional but did not establish she is an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts, sciences, or 
business, or that she qualifies for the requested national interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner 
continues to assert her eligibility for EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability and for the national interest waiver. 
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. 
2 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
3 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
4 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). 
2 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the record does not establish the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 
immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an 
individual with exceptional ability, nor does the Petitioner qualify for the requested national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar 3-prong framework. 
A. Advanced Degree Professional 
The Director concluded the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional due to her 
attainment of a foreign degree equivalent to a U.S. advanced degree. We disagree. The possession of 
an advanced degree alone does not make an individual qualified for EB-2 immigrant classification, as 
a petitioner must establish they are both a "member of the professions" and "hold[] an advanced 
degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(k)(l); see also 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra at F.5(A)(l); Matter ofShin, 
11 I&N, Dec. 686, 688 (Dist. Dir. 1966) (noting that the mere acquisition of a degree alone does not 
qualify a person as a member of a profession). As stated, the definition of profession at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2) includes "any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation." 
On her Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner indicated her intention to 
work in the United States as a real estate broker and sales agent, under the Standard Occupational 
Code (SOC Code) 41-9022. She also stated her duties would include "solicit[ing] potential clients to 
buy, sell, and rent properties; advis[ing] clients on prices, mortgages, market conditions, and related 
information[; and] [ c ]ompar[ing] properties to determine market price." In support of her endeavor, 
the Petitioner also submitted printouts from the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook 
Handbook discussing the real estate brokers and sales agents occupation, which indicates that the 
typical entry-level education for this occupation is a high school diploma or equivalent. 
Because the record shows the occupation ofreal estate brokers and sales agents does not require a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree or foreign equivalent as "the minimum requirement for entry into the 
occupation," we disagree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner is a member of the 
professions as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(k)(l )-(2) and withdraw their conclusion to the contrary. 5 8 
C.F.R. § 204.S(k)(l)-(2). 
B. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner is not an individual of exceptional ability as she only 
satisfied two of the six regulatory criteria, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and (C), regarding attainment 
of a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award and a license to practice the profession or 
certification for a profession or occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that, in addition to 
these two criteria, she meets the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) and (D), relating 
to having acquired ten years of foll-time experience in the occupation and commanding a salary or 
remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability. The Petitioner does not assert error in the Director's 
conclusions regarding the remaining criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) and (F), nor does she 
claim to meet these criteria on appeal; therefore, we consider the issue of eligibility under these criteria 
5 As the resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver under the 
first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework is dispositive of this appeal, it would serve no legal purpose to issue a 
request for evidence for further investigation and analysis. 
3 
to be waived. See Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657. 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing 
party fails to appeal an issue addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). 
Upon de novo review of the record, we agree with the Director's ultimate determination that the 
Petitioner has not established she is an individual of exceptional ability, and, for the reasons discussed 
below, we withdraw the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner meets the criteria 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 6 
Evidence in the form ofletter(s) from current orformer employer(s) showing that the alien 
has at least ten years offull-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
The Director concluded that the record did not establish the Petitioner met this criterion. We agree. 
The Petitioner filed the underlying petition on June 26, 2023. As such, to satisfy this criterion, she 
must establish she obtained ten years of full-time experience prior to June 26, 2023. 7 And to satisfy 
the plain language of this criterion, the evidence must (1) be in the form ofletter(s), (2) be from current 
or former employer(s), and (3) establish at least ten years of full-time experience. Further, such letters 
"shall include a specific description of the duties performed." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l). 
The Petitioner previously submitted three letters before the Director detailing her employment as a 
sales representative with I I from 2012 to 2014, as a property manager with 
I and as a property manager for real estate investor I beginning in 2021. 
Notably, none of the letters provided specific dates of employment or confirmed whether her 
employment was in a full-time capacity. On appeal, the Petitioner submits five additional unsigned 
letters confirming her employment from October 2012 to March 2017 and from September 2018 to 
the filing of this petition, including a letter evidencing her employment with I I between June 
2014 to March 2017. 
These letters do not satisfy the plain language of the regulatory criterion. First, the Petitioner claimed 
employment covers a total period of less than nine-and-a-half years (from October 2012 to March 
2017 and from September 2018 to June 2023). And only the letters submitted on appeal from I I 
I I indicate that her employment between October 2012 to March 2017 was in 
a full-time capacity, but these letters are unsigned and thus have diminished probative value. The 
letters from her other employers do not indicate whether her employment from September 2018 to the 
filing of this petition was full-time. Additionally, the Petitioner has not explained how her experience 
as a sales representative with I a company specializing in the sale of health, hygiene, 
and home products is in the "occupation sought" of real estate broker and sales agent. 
As such, the record does not establish the Petitioner meets the plain language of the regulation. 
6 The record does not otherwise establish the Petitioner meets three of the regulatory criteria, and therefore issuing a request 
for evidence or notice of intent to deny allowing the Petitioner to supplement the record would serve no legal purpose. 
7 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )( l) and Matter o/Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971) (requiring a petitioner to establish 
eligibility for the benefit they are seeking at the time the petition is filed). 
4 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner submitted a copy of her real estate salesperson license from the 
State of California Department of Real Estate. The plain language ofthe regulation requires the Petitioner 
to provide "a license to practice the profession or a certification for a particular profession or occupation." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) [emphasis added]. As discussed above, because the real estate broker and 
sales agent occupation does not require a U.S. baccalaureate degree or foreign equivalent as "the 
minimum requirement for entry into the occupation," we cannot conclude that this occupation qualifies 
as a profession as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that 
she has a license "to practice a profession." Likewise, the Petitioner has not shown that a salesperson 
license is a "certification" for an occupation. Without more, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has 
met the plain language of this criterion and withdraw the Director's conclusion to the contrary. 
Evidence that the Petitioner has commanded a salary, or other remuneration/or services, 
which demonstrate exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that an individual has commanded a salary or 
remuneration for services that is indicative of their claimed exceptional ability relative to others 
working in the field. 8 
The Petitioner previously submitted copies of her company's 2022 tax returns, indicating a gross 
receipts or sales of$388,427 and a total income of $139,762, along with various reports establishing 
that the median salary for real estate sales agents in the United States is between $48,340 and $52,030, 
and $50,442 in California. On appeal, the Petitioner has supplemented the record, providing an 
Occupational Employment and Wages report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicating that the 
annual mean salary for real estate sales agents is $65,850, and the mean salaries for real estate sales 
agents in four metropolitan areas in California range from $86,630 to $92,270. In addition, she has 
provided a letter from her company's accountant stating that for financial year 2023 the company 
"earned a net income of $136,468." 
Upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided documentation showing that her 
remuneration demonstrates exceptional ability relative to others in the field. First, while the Petitioner 
has provided evidence of her company's total earnings, she compares these earnings to reported 
salaries of real estate sales agents. But she does not explain how salary data for others in her field 
compares to her company's total profits, nor has she identified the specific remuneration or salary she 
has received from her company to compare this amount to the reported salaries. And the evidence in 
the record, including the company's business plan, indicates that the Petitioner owns 50% of the 
company. As such, it appears that the Petitioner could only claim 50% of the company's total earnings, 
equating to $68,234 for 2023 and $69,881 for 2022. These earnings are consistent with the reported 
salaries of real estate brokers and sales agents, and do not demonstrate that the petitioner commanded 
a salary or remuneration for services that is indicative of their claimed exceptional ability. 
8 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
5 
For all these reasons, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not satisfied her evidentiary burden 
to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Because the Petitioner did not establish that she meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) through (F), we need not conduct a final merits analysis to determine 
whether the evidence in its totality shows that she is recognized as having a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). 
C. National Interest Waiver 
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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner intends to continue to serve as a real estate broker and sales 
agent through her company to provide "high-quality corporate housing rental units designed to meet 
the needs of professionals and their families who are relocating or visiting specific areas for work­
related activities." According to her business plan, the company's rental units would be "strategically 
located in areas with a strong demand for corporate housing, driven by temporary assignments, 
conferences or company-sponsored vacations." In addition to marketing her properties to businesses 
requiring accommodations for their employees, she will target her rentals to insurance companies 
whose clients have been affected by fires, floods, or other disasters. 
In support of her endeavor, the Petitioner provided an autobiographical statement, a five-year business 
plan, an expert opinion letter, and multiple letters of recommendation. Additionally, she submitted 
industry reports and news articles discussing the growing demand for housing in the United States, the 
growth of remote work, and the displacement of communities due to natural disasters like wildfires, 
flooding, and other weather-related disasters, and the burden placed on neighboring communities to 
house displaced individuals. 
The Director concluded that she had not established eligibility for the requested national interest 
waiver, as she did not satisfy the Dhanasar three-prong framework. While the Director did not make 
a specific conclusion regarding the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor, they explained that 
the evidence on record did not establish the endeavor's national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner 
claims that the decision "was founded on an erroneous application of law or policy" and inaccurate 
based on the record. In doing so, she generally relies on the same claims previously made before the 
Director to establish the national importance of her endeavor. 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that record contains sufficient documentation, including industry 
reports and articles addressing the real estate industry and the need for temporary housing options, to 
establish the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor. However, the record does not demonstrate 
its national importance. 
6 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that her endeavor is in the national importance given the broad 
implications of the real estate field, asserting that "the real estate industry is a fundamental driver of 
economic growth, creating a ripple effect across various sectors," but this reliance on the real estate 
industry is misplaced. In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant 
question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; 
instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar 
at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting 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. 
Regarding the broader implications of her endeavor, the Petitioner claims that it "aligns seamlessly 
with national priorities regarding housing availability and affordability" because she will contribute 
to "efforts aimed at addressing housing shortages and ensuring that housing remains accessible to a 
diverse population." Similarly, she also claims that, as a real estate broker and sales agent, she will 
foster homeownership leading to stable and thriving communities. But she has not supported these 
assertions with relevant and probative evidence corroborating her statements. A petitioner must 
support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 376. And, according to the Petitioner's business plan, she intends to specialize in offering 
temporary, tum-key rental housing to individuals. As such, it is not clear how this endeavor would 
foster homeownership in the United States. Nevertheless, even if the record established the Petitioner 
intended to focus on selling permanent, affordable housing, she has not shown how her endeavor 
would result in broader implications to the real estate industry, beyond the immediate benefit she may 
provide to her clients. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the 
field have little probative value. See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 
1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits 
adjudications). 
The Petitioner also claims she will "expand the real estate agent industry" due to her "innovative 
strategies" to include utilizing flyers containing quick response (QR) codes, which will provide her 
renters with quick access to information about their rental units. Additionally, through the QR codes, 
she will provide categorized information on local attractions and recommendations for food, 
entertainment, and emergency services. While these offerings may be beneficial to her customers, and 
ultimately serve as a viable marketing method for the expansion of her business, they do not likewise 
result in broader implications to the field. Activities which only benefit a small subset of individuals, 
like the Petitioner's proposal to utilize QR codes to offer convenience to her renters do not rise to a 
level of national importance. See Dhanasar at 893 ( concluding that a single teacher's work, which 
will generally only directly benefit their students as opposed to an industry at large is not in the national 
importance). 
Finally, we conclude that the record does not establish the Petitioner's endeavor has a significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or result in substantial economic benefits as contemplated in 
Dhanasar. According to the Petitioner's business plan, the company currently employs one full-time 
employee (the Petitioner), and one part-time accountant. By the fifth year of its operations, the 
7 
Petitioner anticipates employing 27 employees, comprised of two full-time employees (a branch 
manager in addition to the Petitioner) and 25 part-time employees to include branch managers, an 
interior designer, cleaners, maintenance workers, and an accountant. This would result in an annual 
payroll expense of $613,141. Additionally, by her fifth year of operations, she anticipates reaching 
gross annual sales of $5,372,400, resulting in an annual tax payment of $300,037. Notably, however, 
the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections. And, even 
if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were properly explained and supported with 
evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the proposed employment numbers and stated 
revenue would impact the area of intended operations or otherwise establish that the endeavor would 
operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance contemplated in Dhanasar. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor would be 
of national importance, and she therefore does not meet the requirements of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8