dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 11, 2024 In Re: 29401395 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an architectural designer and manager, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. 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 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 establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree.' 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary 
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 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
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, 2 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 3 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner states that she is an architectural designer and manager with more than seven years of 
experience creating interior design of apartments and managing architecture projects in development 
companies. She states that she intends to continue her professional development in the United States 
through real estate development and architectural design and plans to "organize [her] own small 
development company that will build high-quality and affordable housing." 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of her education and experience, a personal 
statement describing her qualifications and the field of architecture, documentation of her design work, 
and recommendation and support letters. She also submitted industry reports and articles discussing 
the field of architectural design and management, shortages and demand in the field, and the benefits 
of immigration on labor shortages in the United States. 
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish her eligibility for the national interest 
waiver. The Director specifically noted that the Petitioner's initial evidence did not include a detailed 
description of her proposed undertaking or venture. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes a 
business plan for her company,! lestablished in February 2023. She states that, 
through her company, she will work to meet housing demand, boost local economies, and enhance 
living standards. She describes her proposed endeavor as follows: 
1. Improving the quality of the product of the residential, multifamily, and mixed-use 
projects, which contributes to the maximum efficiency of the project and meets 
future residents' and clients' expectations. 
2. Creating added value for real estate projects through design services and 3D 
visualizations. 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the equivalent of a U.S. professional degree in architecture awarded in 
2015. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). 
2 
3. Creating effective marketing packages for real estate projects by providing design 
services: 3D visualization of the building's exterior and interiors, landscape design, 
floor layouts, and 3D video projects. 
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that the company will employ two part-time employees in 
its first year. Regarding financial predictions, the Petitioner's business plan predicts total revenue of 
$150,000 in its first year, with a projected profit of $73,000. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner submitted 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, he 
concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor had national 
importance, that she was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it 
would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor 
certification. The Director noted that the articles and industry reports in the record were generic in 
nature and did not support the Petitioner's claims of the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
The Director farther stated that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's business will have 
a regional or national impact at a level consistent with having national importance, or that the 
Petitioner's work will have broader implications in her field of endeavor. The Director also noted that 
the record did not include plans for financial support for her proposed endeavor, or letters of interest 
in working with the Petitioner's company to farther her proposed endeavor. Additionally, the Director 
determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate national interest factors such as the impracticality 
of a labor certification, the benefit of her prospective contributions to the United States, an urgent 
national interest in her contributions, the potential creation of jobs, or that her self-employment does 
not adversely affect U.S. workers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director "failed to give due weight" to 
the evidence in the record and did not address her "degree and expertise in a STEM [Science, 
Technology, Engineering, Mathematics] field." In her brief on appeal, the Petitioner references 
evidence already in the record and states that this evidence demonstrates that she merits a national 
interest waiver. 
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. 4 In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we farther noted that "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and 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 
4 The Petitioner erroneously states on appeal that the Acting Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
"is not of substantial merit." However. the Acting Director stated in the decision, "You submitted sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that your proposed endeavor has substantial merit." We agree that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit. 
3 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be 
understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
When 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 Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Much of the 
Petitioner's evidence relates to the field of architecture generally, rather than her specific proposed 
endeavor. Although we agree that STEM is important to maintaining the national innovation base 
contributing to the U.S. economy and may be the subject of national initiatives, we conclude that this 
does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. 
As noted above, the Director determined the endeavor has substantial merit, and we agree. However, 
the question we are examining here is national importance. 
Although the Petitioner submits articles and industry reports describing the field of architectural design 
and management, these reports are not specific to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 5 One article, 
from job search website Indeed, titled "How to Become an Architectural and Engineering Manager: 4 
Steps," describes the field generally, including required education and experience, but does not support 
the Petitioner's claims of the national importance of her proposed endeavor. A printout of a blog 
directed to building materials companies discusses a shortage of architects and suggests that building 
materials companies improve their marketing to architectural specialists. Although this blog tends to 
support that there is a market for the Petitioner's services, it does not support that her proposed 
endeavor has national importance. An additional article discusses the benefits of increased 
immigration in addressing labor shortages in the United States but is not specific to the Petitioner's 
field or her proposed endeavor. Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the field of architecture 
generally, rather than her specific proposed endeavor. Even considering the articles, reports, and 
statistics collectively and in the totality of circumstances, we still conclude that they do not support a 
finding that her specific proposed endeavor has national importance. 
The Petitioner also submits her business plan dated 2023 to support the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor. 6 As noted, to establish national importance, the Petitioner must demonstrate the 
proposed endeavor's impact. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the 
proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it 
has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. at 889. Although the Petitioner 
states that her proposed endeavor will contribute to economic growth, she has not supported these 
assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence. The Petitioner does not explain how her 
company's revenue ($150,00) and job creation (two part-time employees) as stated in the business 
plan support her claim of "wide-ranging economic, social, and cultural benefits" on a national level. 
The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those already 
available and in use in the United States. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the 
Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting her own company and clients or have broader 
implications within the field of architectural design and management. The record does not establish 
that her proposed endeavor stands to impact the field as a whole. 
5 While we discuss a sampling of these a1iicles and rep01is, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 We note that the Petitioner's business was established in February 2023, five months after the filing of this petition. 
However, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l2). See Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 l&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). 
4 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon the evidence she previously submitted and asserts that the 
Director did not fully consider all of the evidence in the record. We acknowledge the Petitioner's 
appellate claims that the Director did not duly consider certain pieces of evidence, specifically, her 
personal statement and business plan. We note that the decision discusses each of the claimed pieces 
of evidence the Petitioner's lists in her brief Nevertheless, we address them again herein. The 
Petitioner continues to rely upon the asserted merits of the services she will provide, her personal and 
professional qualities and achievements, and the trends in architecture and design. However, as set 
forth above, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national 
importance. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further 
discussion of the balancing factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful 
purpose. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. 7 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7 Even ifwe had addressed the remaining issues, we still would have dismissed this appeal. As noted above, the Director 
concluded that, although the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish its national 
importance, that she was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to 
the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. On appeal, the Petitioner 
references the same supporting evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response and does not provide any 
new evidence. The Director fully addressed the previously submitted evidence and explained how it was deficient in 
establishing that the Petitioner met the three Dhanasar factors and would be eligible for a national interest waiver. The 
Petitioner's assertions on appeal do not establish that she meets all of the three Dhanasar prongs. 
5