dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18667687 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 13, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an historical architect, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 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 and a subsequent motion, concluding 
that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree butthat she had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. 
We dismissed the subsequent appeal, concluding that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the analytical framework 
described in the precedent decision Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). In our 
decision, we declined to comment on whether the record demonstrated eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. The Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider, which we dismissed as the Petitioner had not met the requirements for a motion to reopen 
or a motion to reconsider. The matter is before us again on a second combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider. We affirm our prior conclusion thatthe Petitioner has not met the requirements for such 
motions, nor has she established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motion. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that 
the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record 
of proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the applicant has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening or 
reconsideration, an applicant must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission 
of a properly completed Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also 
show proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
11. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that by regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior 
decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has submitted new 
facts to warrant reopening or has established that our decision to dismiss the prior combined motion was 
based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. We therefore incorporate our prior decision 
by reference and will repeat only certain facts and evidence as necessary to address the Applicant's 
claims on motion. 
A Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) does not define what constitutes a "new" fact 
nor does it mirror the Board of Immigration Appeals' (the Board) definition of "new" at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1003.2(c)(1) (stating that a motion to reopen will not be granted unless the evidence "was not 
available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing"). Unlike the Board 
regulation, we do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or 
undiscoverable. Instead, we interpret ''new facts" to mean facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised 
on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original 
petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not 
constitute "new facts." 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits the following evidence: 
• A May 2021 letter from~------~ a professor and chair of~I -~I University's 
Department of History of Art and Architecture. 
• A May 2021 letter fro ml I the president of the I I ._ ______ ~ 
• A website printout of a 2016 article concerning three benefits of having cultural center; 
• A website printout of an article concerning the impact of cultural center activities on 
communities; 
• A 2013 online article published in the International Journal of Science and Research 
concerning the role of cultural institutions in civic edl"'-u .... ca .... t ..... io ..... n ..... : ___ _, 
• A May 2021 letter fro ml I the president ofl I 
• A 2011 article concerning! I published in an on line version of The National; 
and 
2 
• A May 2021 letter from,__ _______ __. former director of the~I ------~ 
D and university professor. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor is nationally important because it broadly 
enhances cultural enrichment. The motion appears to request that we consider the record de nova; 
however, per the regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(l)(i). 
In his one-page letter.I !states that he invited the Petitioner to present a lecture at his 
institution in October 2018 and describes the unexpected success of the event. Because the event 
described b~ I occurred after the petition filing date in 2017, as well as after the Director's 
initial decision in 2018, it does not establish eligibility at the time of filing. A petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Additionally, as explained in our prior decision, 
to the extent that the Petitioner asserts that her speaking engagements at conferences and universities 
are part of her proposed endeavor, that presents a set of facts that did not exist at the time of filing. A 
visa petition may not be approved after a petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see also Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 l&N Dec. 248, 249 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1978). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make 
a deficient petition conform to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) requirements. See 
Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Because, at the time of filing, the 
proposed endeavor did not include speaking engagements at conferences and universities, the fact that 
the Petitioner speaks at conferences and universities cannot establish eligibility as part of the proposed 
endeavor. 
Additionally, and as already explained in our prior decision, the Petitioner's motion on the Director's 
decision included evidence that she would "speak about employing historic Persian forms in her 
architectural design practice inl I' atl I University on October 24, 2018. Therefore, the 
fact that the Petitioner lectured atl I University in October 2018 is not new because that 
information was previously submitted in the proceeding as well as with the prior motion on our 
decision to dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, to the extent that the Petitioner asserts that her work is 
nationally important because she speaks about it at conferences and universities, we need not consider 
such events as they are not new. 
Finally, even if this evidence could be considered on motion, the Petitioner has not explained how the 
I µniversity lecture in October 2018 or any other speaking engagements at conferences and 
universities would have national importance. The information and evidence provided doesnotsuggest 
that the Petitioner's activities in this regard would have broader implications in the field or extend 
beyond the individuals who attend her lectures or experience her presentations. Accordingly, even if 
we accepted this evidence for consideration, it would not establish eligibility. 
,__ ___ ~I the president of the,__ _____________ __. describes the Petitioner 
as having extensive experience in Islamic architecture and expresses an intention to engage her as 
specialist consultant for the design of an Islamic cultural center. However.I I does not 
state when he plans to engage the Petitioner, for how long, or what her duties would be as a specialist 
consultant. As this letter is dated in May 2021 and references speculative work, these future activities 
do not assist the Petitioner in establishing eligibility at the time of filing. Even if we considered the 
3 
activities as part of the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner has not established what impact this specific 
cultural center would have. For instance, the Petitioner has not explained how the benefits of the 
cultural center would be so substantial as to rise to the level of national importance. More importantly, 
the Petitioner has not explained how her role in the design of the cultural center is nationally important. 
For example, she has not identified how her input on the design of the center imbues the center with 
additional broader cultural enrichment that it would not otherwise have without her design consultant 
services. Although we acknowledge the articles concerning cultural centers, we conclude th at this 
evidence does not demonstrate how the work described inl._ ___ ___,h letter would be nationally 
important. In addition, the articles do not discuss the specific cultural center the Petitioner proposes 
to consult on, nor do they discuss the Petitioner's role in such cultural centers. Accordingly, we 
conclude that even if this future work could be considered as establishing eligibility at the time of 
filing, it would not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
According to his May 2021 letter, the president ofl 1,1 I, proposes to engage 
the Petitioner as a scholar, teaching weekend classes for the public The Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor at the time of filing did not include teaching classes at al I-based bookstore and 
therefore, these new activities cannot establish eligibility at the time of filing. Moreover, even if these 
activities could be considered, the proposed activities would not rise to the level of national 
importance. It is notapparentfrom this letter how many classes the Petitioner would teach, how often, 
for how long, or how many people would attend the classes. The evidence does not establish how the 
Petitioner's teaching activities would extend beyond the individuals that happen to attend. In 
Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N 
Dec. 884 at 893. For the same reason, we conclude that the Petitioner's proposed future teaching 
activities do not rise to the level of having national importance. Although the article aboutc=] 
I I provides useful background, the article does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor would have broader implications in the field or enrich societal culture to such an extent as 
to satisfy the national importance requirement of the first prong. As such, we conclude that, to the 
extent this evidence may be considered, it does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden under the Dhanasar 
framework. 
Lastl , we turn to the May2021 letterfroml lformerdirectorofthJ._ __ _. 
and university professor.I !praises the Petitioner's personal and professional 
~----r...,........----,-.----r-' 
qua 1 1cat1ons ut does not demonstrate knowledge of the proposed endeavor. In addition, he writes 
about the Petitioner's past work, which would not be considered a new fact. Furthermore, the 
Petitioner's past work, along with her qualifications, are a consideration under the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake 
has substantial merit and national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. Accordingly, this letter 
does not assist the Petitioner in establishing eligibility. 
Upon review of the evidence submitted with the motion, we conclude that some of the evidence is not 
new, while other evidence cannot be considered as part of the proposed endeavor that would establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. Moreover, even if the proposed future work could be considered, the 
activities described would not rise to the level of national importance. We concludethatthe additional 
evidence submitted in support of the motion to reopen does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed 
4 
endeavor has national importance. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown she is eligible for the 
benefit sought and the motion to reopen must be dismissed. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
As discussed, a motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision misapplied law or USCIS 
policy based on the record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The Petitioner does not 
specifically assert on motion that our decision was based on an incorrect application of Dhanasar, 
based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. Instead, the Petitioner 
generally requests us to reach a different conclusion based on a review of the entire record along with 
the evidence discussed above, in the context of a motion to reopen. We affirm that our decision 
correctly applied Dhanasar, and that it was correct, based on the evidence in the record at the time of 
the decision. The Applicant has not shown that our previous decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider will be dismissed. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the evidence provided in support of the motion to reopen does not overcome 
the grounds underlying our prior decision, and the Applicant's motion to reconsider has not shown 
that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. Therefore, the 
combined motion to reopen and reconsider will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
5