dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 6, 2024 In Re: 27693833 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an architect, 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 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 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. 1 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 101 ( 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 (USCTS) 
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 is 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 asserts that she has more than 10 years of experience as an architect and urban planner, 
working "in various stages of the architectural process, in projects and interior design, studies of 
building plans, presentations of solutions for residential and corporate areas." The Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor is to provide consulting services as an architect in her own firm, including 
architectural work and interior design. She states that her proposed endeavor will benefit the United 
States by: 
• Implementing sustainable architecture solutions. 
• Creating economically and energy-efficient architectural properties. 
• Driving the growth of green building projects in the United States. 
• Improving project control to avoid waste of materials, structure problems, and 
rework. 
• Creating healthier living and working environments. 
• Reducing operating costs and increasing profits. 
• Creating jobs and increasing income to improve the economy. 
• Strengthening the supplier and raw material chain. 
• Increasing quality and safety in infrastructure. 
• Improving socio-economic development of economically depressed communities. 
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 
2 See also 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
3 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree awarded in 2015, 
followed by more than five years of progressive experience. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
2 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner has demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit and national importance. The record includes evidence of the Petitioner's academic 
credentials, her resume, letters of recommendation, a detailed business plan, and several articles 
discussing the importance of architecture and urban development to the United States. The letters and 
articles support the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, aimed at 
increasing green and sustainable building solutions, has substantial merit and is of national importance. 
Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner meets the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
B. Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model 
or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest 
of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. at 890. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that she 
is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. He issued a request for evidence (RFE), 
allowing the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence to establish that she meets the 
second Dhanasar prong. In the RFE, the Director noted that the record did not include a plan 
describing how the Petitioner intended to pursue her business in the United States. He further noted 
that, although the letters of recommendation established her past work history, the Petitioner did not 
submit independent, objective evidence of her contributions to the field as a whole. 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes a detailed business plan, additional letters of 
recommendation, and a personal statement. In her business plan, the Petitioner includes a summary 
of her business strategy, as well as a personnel plan and financial projections for a five-year period. 
She predicts hiring 15 full-time employees, in addition to herself as Chief Architect and Designer, to 
work in two office locations in Florida. Her financial projections include net profit of $202,593, and 
total revenue of $1.8 million within five years. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. He stated that the 
Petitioner's recommendation letters give her general praise for the work she has accomplished, but do 
not establish that she has a record of success in the endeavor. He again noted that the Petitioner did 
not submit independent, objective evidence to demonstrate that she has made contributions to the field 
as a whole. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she has demonstrated experience, knowledge, and progress 
toward achieving her proposed endeavor. She cites to evidence already in the record and asserts that 
this evidence establishes that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. 
3 
To support her claimed record of success in the field, the Petitioner relies on two letters of 
recommendation, one from her current employer and one from a former colleague, and quotes directly 
from these letters on appeal. However, the letters do not provide specific examples indicating that the 
Petitioner's work has impacted the field. 4 For example, I the Petitioner's current 
employer, describes the Petitioner as an "asset to the company," and states that she "implemented new 
standards that increase sales." While these accomplishments may benefit the Petitioner's employer 
and its clients, Ms. I I does not describe the Petitioner's contributions to the field of 
architecture and design. I I the Petitioner's former colleague, describes the 
Petitioner's knowledge in different architectural techniques, but does not provide specific examples 
of the Petitioner's contributions to the field of architecture or discuss how the Petitioner has been 
recognized for her work. 
Although some of the letters mention the Petitioner's accomplishments in her work, they do not 
provide sufficient detail to demonstrate a track record of success. One letter, from former colleague 
______ describes the Petitioner's "rise in the regional market, "noting that her works 
have gained prominence among the community of local architects." Emphasis added. Mr.I I 
does not name or describe any of the Petitioner's projects, nor does he explain how the Petitioner's 
regional and local accomplishments have impacted the field of architecture and design. 
The Director noted, in the RFE and in the decision, that the Petitioner did not submit evidence of any 
contracts, licenses, or agreements demonstrating that she has made progress toward advancing her 
endeavor in the United States. On appeal, the Petitioner states that her business plan describes her 
progress toward achieving her proposed endeavor. Although the business plan discusses the 
Petitioner's "organization and personnel plans" and "marketing and promotion," it does not describe 
the Petitioner's plans for obtaining a license to practice her profession in Florida, the proposed location 
for her business. Nor does the record include evidence that the Petitioner has taken steps to register 
her businessJ Ior identify specific locations for its 
operations inl I and I I Florida. 
The Petitioner states that her business will "execute a whole range of architectural and design services 
for new residential and commercial projects, as well as for public sphere and urban planning projects 
and renovations." The Petitioner does not mention, in either her personal statement or her business 
plan, what steps she has taken toward working with residential or commercial clients, key aspects of 
her proposed endeavor. The business plan does not discuss the Petitioner's planned involvement with 
urban planning projects, as she describes in her proposed endeavor. The record lacks evidence of 
interest from public administration or agencies involved in urban planning, and of the Petitioner's 
progress toward achieving her proposed endeavor in this regard. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has an academic background and successful professional 
career working in architecture and design, but she has not shown that this work renders her well­
positioned to advance her specific proposed endeavor as an architect and design consultant. We 
examine the factors set forth in Dhanasar to determine whether, for instance, the individual's progress 
towards achieving the goals of the proposed endeavor, record of success in similar efforts, or 
generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. The Petitioner, 
4 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
however, has not sufficiently demonstrated that her work has served as an impetus for progress in the 
field of architecture and design. Nor does the evidence otherwise show that her work constitutes a 
record of success or progress in increasing green and sustainable building solutions. 
As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her 
proposed endeavor, she has not established that she satisfies the second prong of 
the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial 
The third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer 
or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are 
available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish 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. 
Id. at 890-91. 
Here, the Petitioner claims that she is eligible for a waiver due to her knowledge and experience, 
potential job creation resulting from her business, and the impracticality of labor certification. 
However, as the Petitioner has not established that she is well-positioned to advance her endeavor as 
required by the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest 
waiver and further discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful 
purpose. 
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. 
5