This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification (insufficient evidence of five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience) and failed to demonstrate her proposed endeavor had national importance under Dhanasar's first prong.
The petitioner, a Brazilian national with a bachelor's degree in legal studies, sought an EB-2 National Interest Waiver to establish a real estate advisory and consulting company in Florida. The AAO dismissed the appeal on two independent grounds: first, the petitioner's experience letters did not include specific descriptions of duties as required by regulation, so she failed to establish the five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience needed to qualify for the underlying EB-2 classification; second, her business plan projections and expert letter lacked corroborating evidence to show her proposed endeavor would have national importance beyond its proposed clients. The AAO withdrew the Director's favorable EB-2 eligibility finding and declined to address the remaining Dhanasar prongs since the national importance issue was dispositive. The case illustrates that both the underlying EB-2 eligibility and all three Dhanasar prongs must be robustly documented.
What failed: Experience letters were too vague — they described roles in general terms rather than providing specific duty descriptions required by regulation, defeating the claim of five years of progressive experience. Business plan projections were unsubstantiated — without evidence supporting the basis or economic significance of staffing and revenue figures, they could not establish national importance. Claims of broader societal impact (affordable housing, community well-being, innovative solutions) were asserted but unsupported by corroborating evidence, and working in an important field alone is insufficient to establish national importance.
Takeaway: For EB-2 NIW petitions, experience letters must specifically describe duties performed to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), and business plans must be supported by concrete evidence showing the endeavor's national-level economic or social impact — broad assertions and unsupported projections will not meet the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-2-NIW criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Experience letters were too vague — they described roles in general terms rather than providing specific duty descriptions required by regulation, defeating the claim of five years of progressive experience
- Business plan projections were unsubstantiated — without evidence supporting the basis or economic significance of staffing and revenue figures, they could not establish national importance
- Claims of broader societal impact (affordable housing, community well-being, innovative solutions) were asserted but unsupported by corroborating evidence, and working in an important field alone is insufficient to establish national importance.
Foreign equivalent bachelor's degree in legal studies from Brazil (awarded March 2005)
Experience letters that failed to provide specific descriptions of duties performed as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1)
Business plan projections regarding staffing levels and real estate investment activity, which lacked supporting evidence for their basis or economic significance
Expert letter claiming broader implications for affordable housing and community well-being, unsupported by corroborating details or evidence
Assertions that the proposed endeavor would pioneer innovative solutions in real estate, without identifying those solutions or explaining their national/global implications
The Director incorrectly found the petitioner met the underlying EB-2 visa classification requirements as an advanced degree professional; the AAO withdrew this finding because the experience letters lacked the specific duty descriptions required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) and did not establish five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty.
Completed
I-140 filed
Aspiring CEO of a real estate advisory and consulting company; previously worked as a legal advisor in real estate in Brazil
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2025-04-02
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification (insufficient evidence of five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience) and failed to demonstrate her proposed endeavor had national importance under Dhanasar's first prong.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee