dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22587364 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 13, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an architect, seeks second preference immigrant classification as either an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 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). After a 
petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner 
demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 
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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying 
classification. Nevertheless, the Director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance, that the Petitioner is well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor, or that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer would be in the 
national interest. Accordingly, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner reasserts her eligibility, arguing that the Director 
applied an incorrect standard of proof, did not review each piece of evidence properly, and erred in 
the decision. 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 de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver .... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 USC § 1101(a)(32), provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall 
include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i i). 
2 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). In announcing this new framework, we vacated 
our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 
215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest 
waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th 
Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in 
nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted if the petitioner 
demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
(3) 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. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three 
prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner offered sufficient evidence to establish that she 1s a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is 
whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
On her Form 1-140, the Petitioner described her work as "[p]lan[ing] and design[ing] structures, such 
as private residences, office buildings, theaters, factories, and other structural property." In her initial 
filing, she described her proposed endeavor as advancing her career as an architect, which involves 
consulting on architectural design and construction projects, managing the architectural activities of 
U.S. construction projects, and advising U.S. architectural companies operating or planning to operate 
domestically and abroad. Specifically, she proposed to help U.S. businesses develop cross-border 
projects abroad, particularly in Latin America. She intends to provide significant benefits by 
facilitating business operations of U.S. construction-related companies and investors interested in the 
architectural, civil, and commercial construction fields in the Brazilian and other Latin American 
markets. In so doing, she plans to "continue working in [a]rchitecture with multi-national companies," 
providing them with guidance on national and cross-border contracts that involve the development of 
construction projects in the U.S. and Brazil. In her initial professional plan and statement, the 
Petitioner wrote that she would design, plan, and develop complex architectural and engineering 
projects. 
Regarding the national importance of her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner stated that she will 
contribute directly to the field of architecture by helping construct U.S. infrastructure. She stated that 
she can manage cash flows and boost project completion rates, which would also advance the field of 
architecture. The Petitioner emphasized in her professional plan and statement that her endeavor will 
impact the United States in the following ways: 
• U.S. job creation and revenue; 
• Facilitate cross-border construction projects by helping U.S. companies negotiate lucrative 
contracts with suppliers, manufacturers, and construction companies domestically and abroad, 
particularly in Brazil; 
3 
• Reduce operating costs; 
• Increase property values; and 
• Optimize the structural integrity of commercial, residential, and government buildings. 
In support, the Petitioner submitted background materials on architecture as a career, numerous 
articles, industry reports, a national interest waiver eligibility advisory opinion, recommendation 
letters, project completion documents, and photos, among other pieces of evidence. While we do not 
discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
Overall, the recommendation letters praise the Petitioner's personal and professional qualities, as well 
as demonstrate the authors' admiration of her architectural work. Although the authors recognized the 
Petitioner's past accomplishments, none of the letters described the proposed endeavor or explained 
why it has national importance. For instance, the founder of a civil engineering 
business, described two projects upon which the Petitioner worked and explained how the Petitioner 
performed well on the projects. However, he did not suggest that the Petitioner's past success in 
individual and local projects impacted the field of architecture or the nation such that the Petitioner's 
prior achievements would serve to inform the national importance of her proposed endeavor. Mr. 
I I a hospital executive who interacted with the Petitioner on an architectural 
project for his hospital, offered a conclusory statement that the Petitioner "is widely-lauded as one of 
the most capable Architects inl but he did not offer any evidence to corroborate this claim. 
Similarly.I I. an account manager atl I stated that 
the Petitioner is "well known in the real estate market," "stands out" as an architect, and is considered 
a "second-to-none architect in the region." However, his assertions are not adequately supported by 
evidence. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have 
little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding 
that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). The 
submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters so as to determine whether they support the 
petitioner's eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that 
expe1i opinion testimony does not purpmi to be evidence as to "fact"). Here, the letters do not support 
the Petitioner's eligibility. 
We reviewed the background information about architectural careers, articles and reports about the 
field, the difficulty of staffing architectural firms because of shifting workloads, as well as trends and 
forecasts on construction growth. While these resources emphasize the importance of the architectural 
field, they do not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor such that we can conclude her 
specific endeavor has national importance. 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 unde1iake." See Dhanasar, 26 l&N 
Dec. at 889. We acknowledge the importance of the architectural industry and architectural careers; 
however, this is insufficient to establish that the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner submitted an advisory opinion from, _______ an adjunct professor at 
the I I College ofl ]concerning the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. In the national impmiance sectioi: ofl !opinion, he repeated the contents of the 
Petitioner's resume in paragraph form and primarily discussed statistics on architecture and the 
4 
Brazilian economy. I also offered his opm10n on the Petitioner's personal and 
professional qualifications; however, the Petitioner's expertise relates to 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. The advisory opinion 
does not contain a discussion of the proposed endeavor or its national importance. As a matter of 
discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron 
Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less 
weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. 
Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's 
eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence 
of eligibility. Id. Here, the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully 
address the details of the proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), notifying the Petitioner that she had not established 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor. The decision specifically explained that she had 
not substantiated her assertion that international architectural or construction contracts would impart 
national benefits. Furthermore, the RFE explained that the Petitioner had not sufficiently supported 
her assertions that her proposed endeavor would lead to U.S. job creation, a significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers, or have other substantial positive economic effects. In addition, the Director 
noted that the Petitioner appeared to have a standard goal that many architects endeavor to achieve, 
that of enabling the design and construction of sustainable, multi-use developments. However, the 
Director stated that a proposed endeavor to achieve this standardized architectural goal did not appear 
to bear upon national importance. 
In her RFE response, the Petitioner clarified that her endeavor is to "contribute to innovative 
architectural and design projects in the United States in residential, commercial, and industrial 
architectural projects." Further, she will offer consulting services to support and optimize businesses 
operating in architecture, interior design, civil construction, and focus on solutions that account for 
ergonomics, health, and environmental sustainability. In an updated professional plan and statement, 
she wrote that she intends to establish her own company in the United States, which would contribute 
significantly to the domestic job market and the national economy. Her endeavor also includes 
pursuing a course of study on the Florida construction market, as well as pursuing what appear to be 
the requirements for obtaining an architectural license in the United States. 
In our review, we conclude the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as articulated in her RFE response, 
differs markedly from the focus of her initially described proposed endeavor activities. When she 
initially filed her Form 1-140, her proposed endeavor largely focused on architectural consulting for 
multinational companies and on architectural projects that involved cross-border construction projects 
between the United States and Brazil. However, in her RFE response, the Petitioner shifted her focus 
to running her own architecture business and engaging in individual projects in Florida. While these 
activities share a connection through architecture, the emphasis of the endeavor appears to be quite 
different. In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. Here, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has not identified a specific and consistent proposed endeavor. Additionally, the evidence suggests 
that the Petitioner established her new business after the filing date of the initial petition. A visa 
5 
petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after a petitioner becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1978). Furthermore, a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to 
make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of lzummi, 22 l&N Dec. 169, 
176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). If significant changes are made to the initial request for approval, the 
Petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the 
facts in the record. 
Nonetheless, we examined the claims regarding the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner claimed that her endeavor would have the prospective impact of improving structural 
safety, occupant health, employment in a significant number of industries, training for architectural 
professionals, and practices in construction and development. Moreover, she stated that these impacts 
would occur on a national level, as well as positively impact the U.S. economy. Because her 
architecture and design company specializes in remodeling and project consulting, she intends to 
create direct and indirect job opportunities by hiring U.S. workers. Through her company, she expects 
to meet certain socioeconomic needs in the United States, as she believes her services will improve 
construction development, which could facilitate commercial and societal activities. Additionally, she 
emphasized that her "techniques can be applied to a wide range of industry areas" and that her 
innovative technological methods can enhance operational efficiency and quality, which would enable 
her to impart benefits on a wide, even global, scale. 
The Petitioner further asserted that her proposed endeavor is national in scope and will produce 
significant national benefits due to the ripple effects of her professional activities. She provided 
examples of the ripple effects, including "spur[ring] U.S. real estate investments, prioritiz[ing] the 
domestic job market, and ultimately increas[ing] the flow of money into the [United States] on a 
national level, which will contribute to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP)." While initiating the 
ripple effects described above, the Petitioner asserted that she would also contribute to societal welfare 
through the development of sustainable construction and real estate practices, such as those that will 
account for climate change and address the affordable housing crisis. The Petitioner claimed her work 
would stimulate foreign investment activities within the U.S. real estate industry, enhance real 
property value, and promote local economies through improving urban design quality. She asserted 
that she would contribute to longer term benefits, such as boosting economic growth and promoting 
the livability of cities and urban areas. In support of her claims, she cited statistics concerning real 
estate's contribution to the GDP, how consumer spending contributes to the economy, and how 
consumer spending impacts the real estate market. She then concluded that her area of business, 
residential real estate developments, "carries substantial economic weight" and "spurs recuning 
financial opportunities for the [United States] at large." The Petitioner also pointed out that her 
endeavor would support and promote entrepreneurship and that this would produce a positive impact 
on the economy and increase the chances of discovering innovative solutions to social challenges faced 
around the world. 
To support the assertions in her RFE response, the Petitioner referenced the evidence previously 
submitted and offered additional evidence, including numerous industry articles and reports, an 
updated professional plan and statement, and an additional recommendation letter, among other pieces 
of evidence. The articles and reports address topics including, but not limited to, the real estate 
industry, the impact of real estate on the U.S. economy, entrepreneurship, affordable housing, and the 
6 
economic and fiscal consequences of immigration. While some of the articles reinforce the importance 
of architecture as an industry, other topics appear too attenuated to be relevant to the matter at hand. 
For instance, articles on foreign direct investment (FDI) are only loosely connected to architecture, as 
foreign buyers can affect real estate and the economy. The articles on the need for affordable housing 
appear to emphasize the availability of the housing, rather than the specific architecture of it. Overall, 
while these articles bring awareness to issues that are adjacently relevant to the field of architecture, 
none of the articles discuss the proposed endeavor or establish how the specific proposed endeavor 
has national importance. 
The additional support letter from a former classmate, described projects upon 
which he and the Petitioner collaborated upon in the past, but it did not contain a discussion of the 
proposed endeavor or its national importance. We reviewed the Petitioner's business plan in which 
she described her vision, mission, and the services she will provide. In the first five years of operation, 
the Petitioner anticipates that she will create 43 direct jobs and generate over two million dollars each 
in salaries and income tax. Even if the Petitioner succeeded in achieving these benchmarks, this would 
not be sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's endeavor impacts the field of architecture as a 
whole or stands to impact the nation on a level commensurate with national importance. 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." Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. There is little indication from the evidence 
provided that the impact of the proposed endeavor would reach the field of architecture or extend 
beyond the specific locations and parties involved in the architectural projects. 
Although the Petitioner highlighted the ripple effects of her work and stated that her endeavor would 
positively impact the economy, job creation, affordable housing, environmental sustainability, and 
societal activities, among other benefits, she has not offered sufficient evidence to corroborate these 
claims. As discussed above, it is not apparent that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor activities would 
operate on such a scale as to rise to the level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an 
endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to 
corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Furthermore, merely 
working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
As noted above, many of the benefits the Petitioner claimed that the proposed endeavor would create, 
such as affordable housing and enhanced societal activities, appear to depend less on a specific 
structure's architecture and more upon the funding, physical space, and availability of them. Other 
benefits the Petitioner claimed, such as those related to real estate, depend on numerous factors, the 
architecture of which appears to be just one. The Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct 
evidentiary tie between her architectural services and the claimed results. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that she has "techniques" and innovative methods. However, 
she does not explain what these techniques and methods are, whether they are unavailable or unknown 
in the United States, or whether the quality of her architectural capabilities is better than that which is 
already offered in the United States. Even if she had demonstrated this, it would not establish how 
her methods and techniques would be available to individual architects or to the public at large. 
Similarly, in Dhanasar, we detennined 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. Dhanasar, 26 
7 
l&N Dec at 893. Here, we conclude that although individual clients and companies may benefit from 
her services, she has not offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate how this individual benefit rises 
to the level of national importance or stands to impact the field more broadly. 
The proposed endeavor may very well improve individual buildings and construction projects; 
however, the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish a strong connection between the proposed 
endeavor activities and job creation, tax revenues, and societal enrichment on a level commensurate 
with national importance. Not all business activity has the potential to impact the economy on a 
nationally important scale. While the Petitioner's proposed endeavor may impact the individuals and 
businesses that engage her for her services, the evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's services 
will be available on a level that creates national or global implications in the architectural field. 
Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job 
creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or 
national economy resulting from the Petitioner's services would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not duly consider certain pieces of evidence 
and failed to apply the correct standard of proof when reviewing the evidence. In support, she relies 
primarily upon the evidence and arguments previously submitted. While we acknowledge the 
Petitioner's appellate claims, we nevertheless conclude that the documentation in the record does not 
sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong 
of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor has national importance. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of her 
eligibility under the second and third prong outlined in Dhanasar would therefore serve no meaningful 
purpose. 
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) ("courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of 
L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 {BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8