dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 19, 2024 In Re: 35206465 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (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. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l l 53(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner qualified for a national interest waiver. 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCTS may, as matter of discretion, 1 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional. The 
remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner initially stated that he intended to work in the field of architecture in the United States 
to create environmentally sustainable and aesthetically pleasing buildings, including residential 
housing. He provided the following summary of his proposed endeavor: 
I will build landmarks, monuments, and cultural institutions that are feats of design and 
engineering that will have an everlasting, deeply impactful effect on America's culture 
and economy. 
Given [the] grave housing cns1s in the United States, my proposed endeavor­
informed by all that I have achieved in Azerbaijan in function and scale-shall be an 
incredible boon to the people of the United States-and is of utmost national 
importance, as my talent will allow me to build housing projects of immense function 
and scale, and this work will make a significant impact in alleviating the deeply 
detrimental housing shortage crisis in the United States. 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the 
Director concluded the record did not establish that the endeavor is of national importance. On appeal, 
the Petitioner reiterates his explanation of the national importance of his endeavor, asserting that the 
Director erred in evaluating the submitted evidence. Upon review, for the reasons discussed below, 
we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his 
endeavor in order to establish his eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
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 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Goining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Comts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In 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." Id. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 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 positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for 
instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. Further, to evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner provided reports and articles discussing White House initiatives concerning the STEM 
fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), immigration, the construction industry, 
and the impact of commercial real estate on the economy. This material, however, does not provide 
sufficient insight into any specific plans that the Petitioner has concerning his intent to work as an 
architect in the United States. While this documentation relates to the area in which the Petitioner 
intends to work, it does not speak to how the Petitioner's individual endeavor to design or oversee 
housing developments or other construction projects would have a potential prospective impact of 
national importance. And although the Petitioner also offered documentation concerning architecture 
he has designed and developed, his professional experience does not provide insight into any specific 
proposed endeavor envisioned by the Petitioner beyond that of continuing his work in his field. 
The Petitioner also submitted an expert opinion letter and letters of support discussing his skills, 
knowledge, and accomplishments. The expert opinion letter expresses confidence in the Petitioner's 
abilities and cites his commitment to improving the lives of residents in rural and urban communities, 
stating that the Petitioner "aims to revolutionize the industry by introducing innovative and sustainable 
design practices prioritizing safety, functionality, and aesthetic appeal"; the letter does not, however, 
provide details concerning innovative design practices or explain their potential function within the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Similarly, a letter of support from a previous client praises the 
Petitioner's work on various projects, referring to his work on a mansion as "defying geographical 
limitations and challenging architectural norms," but the author does not elaborate on this observation. 
Another letter of support from an individual who specializes in glass facades conveys admiration for 
a difficult project developed by the Petitioner involving the application of thousands of glass panels, 
but the author does not provide specific information concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
Although these and other letters of support laude the Petitioner's work and character, they do not 
illuminate any definitive endeavor he intends to pursue in the United States. We note that the 
Petitioner also provided letters from developers in the United States interested in hiring him, but these 
letters do not detail projects utilizing the Petitioner's services or explain how any such projects would 
be of national importance. 
We further note that the expert opinion letter refers to the Petitioner's "reputation as one of the world's 
most respected and sought-after architects" who has "extensive experience and expertise in designing 
3 
and constructing structures," and the letters of support express interest in investing in his future 
projects in the United States. However, evidence of work experience and investment interest generally 
relates not to the national importance of an endeavor, as discussed in the first prong of Matter of 
Dhanasar, but to the second, 2 which evaluates whether an individual is well positioned to advance an 
endeavor. As such, these letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
In response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner clarified that he intended to shift the operations of 
his existing architecture firm in Azerbaijan to the United States; he explained that working through 
his firm would be the vehicle by which he would accomplish his "proposed endeavor of benefiting the 
business, construction and economy fields of the United States." While we recognize that the 
Petitioner's general intention to contribute to the economy and address housing needs is an endeavor 
of substantial merit, he has not detailed how his single architecture firm would specifically impact 
purported nationwide shortages in housing or in the construction industry. Again, it is not the overall 
importance of the industry or field in which the Petitioner intends to work, but the specific endeavor 
on which the Petitioner intends to embark that we consider in evaluating whether it is of national 
importance. Although an endeavor that is shown to have significant potential to broadly enhance 
societal welfare may be considered to have national importance, 3 here, the Petitioner has described 
worthy but broad ambitions without identifying or defining his specific endeavor beyond that of an 
intention to create useful and high-caliber projects through the work of his firm-a single business 
that would operate as one of tens of thousands in the United States. The Petitioner has not provided 
evidence of how, for example, his firm's development of a building that would serve as a residence 
for its tenants would constitute an endeavor of national importance. 
Concerning the purported economic impact of the Petitioner's business, while his statements generally 
speculate that his firm would create jobs in the United States, he did not provide independent evidence 
or otherwise explain how his business would create jobs at a level that would have a significant impact 
on a given region or have a prospective national impact on a specific field. A petitioner must support 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376. The record does not include a plan or other indication of how the Petitioner would operate a 
business that would, as he claims, impact the economy at the level of national importance 
contemplated under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner has not specifically described how he would undertake an endeavor of a scale that 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 
890. While the Petitioner has described in broad terms the services he intends to provide, he has not 
explained how his individual company would have a national-level impact to-as described in one of 
his stated main goals-"build and improve housing in the United States." 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
2 Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, determinations 
concerning the second and third prongs are unnecessary to the ultimate decision; therefore, they will be reserved in this 
decision. 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l). 
4 
for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies 
are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
decision); 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the 
Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not 
established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5