dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 09, 2023 In Re: 27061929 
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. § 1153(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. § 1153(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 that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance. 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. 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." 
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 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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director's decision did not address whether the evidence ofrecord demonstrates that the Petitioner 
qualifies for the EB-2 classification. In a request for evidence (RFE), however, the Director stated 
that "the beneficiary's Master's degree in Architecture classifies [her] as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree." A review of the record shows that the Petitioner obtained the foreign 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree from a university in Brazil and that she subsequently worked 
for more than five years in the field of architecture. 3 The record establishes that the Petitioner qualifies 
for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. The remaining issue is whether the 
Petitioner has established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 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 
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. 
The Petitioner proposes to work as an architect in the United States. Her petition initially included an 
overview of her intent to work for companies to design houses, office buildings, and stadiums with a 
focus on sustainability. Although the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, he issued an RFE requesting, in part, evidence to demonstrate how the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor is of national importance. In response, the Petitioner submitted a professional plan 
in which she describes her endeavor in five parts: "Architectural Projects," "Project Management and 
Administration," "Work Management Aimed at Construction Quality," "Focus on Sustainability," and 
"Furniture Design." These parts provide general descriptions of how the Petitioner will use her 
qualifications to undertake responsibilities and perform duties typically expected of architects and 
designers. In terms of the positive effects of her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner states, 
In the United States, I will create, develop and manage innovative architectural projects 
to attend U.S. companies' needs. I will provide unique contributions to each business 
by implementing new design and processes to develop executive projects, providing 
real-time integration to companies of different sizes and segments. Ultimately, I will 
offer intelligent and innovative project development ideas and techniques aimed at 
supporting many businesses by optimizing processes, reducing costs, increasing 
1 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). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (stating that a United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree). 
2 
productivity, enhancing business intelligence and helping compames operate more 
efficiently. 
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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 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 her work. 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. Id. at 893. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding, 
[W]hile the petitioner's aim is meant to impact the broader field, the potential 
prospective impact of [her] proposed endeavor pointed to a single impact with her 
employers and their clients, rather than substantial positive economic effects for the 
United States. Accordingly, without sufficient documentary evidence of its broader 
impact, the petitioner's architectural projects and project management and 
administration, construction quality, and furniture design work does not meet the 
"national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.. . . [The 
record] is insufficient to establish that the petitioner's work will serve as an impetus for 
progress in the business sector. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision "contains numerous erroneous 
conclusions of both law and fact." The Petitioner, however, does not specify how the Director erred 
or what factors in the decision were erroneous. 4 The Petitioner provides a brief that is largely identical 
to a cover letter included with her RFE response, 5 stating ( quoted as written), 
._______.I intends to apply her expertise and unique professional experience in 
construction management, providing specialized services that encompass the entire 
construction process, from conception to execution and decoration. She will analyze 
project's feasibility, design structures and develop accurate 3D perspectives to better 
align with client's demands, considering all electrical, hydraulic, lighting and 
temperature control systems and needs in her designs. The Petitioner will also perform 
site assessment and construction work planning, monitoring and budgeting, as well as 
conduct interior decorating assessments and plans. The Petitioner apply her knowledge 
4 An appeal must specifically identity any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
5 We note that the briefreferences a "newly enclosed Professional Plan." Upon review of the record, it appears that this 
phrase does not refer to a new plan submitted with the brief, but to the plan submitted in response to the RFE. 
3 
in sustainable projects , using innovative and greener materials and reducing material 
waste in construction works . 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not established that her 
proposed endeavor to work as an architect in the United States rises to the level of national importance. 
Beyond general descriptions of the Petitioner's intention to work with clients to plan, design, and 
oversee sustainable projects, the record does not contain documentation that specifically identifies or 
details her endeavor, nor does the record include evidence demonstrating a plan to achieve the 
endeavor. Apart from references to growth in the construction industry, the record does not contain 
probative evidence showing that the Petitioner's individual work has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise demonstrate its positive economic effects. The record does not show that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would extend beyond providing services to her immediate clientele 
and otherwise impact the fields of sustainable development on either a national or global scale. 
Further, while the Petitioner asserts that her work will "contribute to the talent shortage the industry 
faces" by "strengthening the U.S. architecture industry," she does not explain how the work of a single 
architect would alleviate a shortage at a nationally important level. Similarly, despite her assertion 
that "her work is a key factor in creating a functional city, efficient buildings and a healthy economy 
by building with more efficient and sustainable practices," the record does not contain probative 
evidence to support this statement and others in the record that claim the potential national importance 
of the Petitioner's endeavor. 6 Although the Petitioner's statements reflect intentions to develop 
sustainable design and construction projects, she has not offered sufficient information or evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance and, therefore, has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor would have a b road 
influence commensurate with national importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner' s proposed endeavor 
does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
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 
for a national interest waiver. Because the documentation in the record does not establish national 
importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is 
dispositive, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments with respect to the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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 l&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 met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver. The petition will remain denied. 
6 The Petitioner must support assertions with relevant , probative , and credible evidence . See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369 at 376. 
4 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5