dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 24, 2024 In Re: 32346086 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an architect, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. 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. 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, although the Petitioner 
qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, the record did not establish 
that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. The matter is now before us on 
appeal pursuant to 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. 1 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a 
national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 immigrant 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a 
discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of 
the Act. While neither 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 
1 The Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, was initially assigned receipt numberl The appeal was 
subsequently assigned a new receipt number, and the Petitioner notified of this change by 
correspondence dated February 21 , 2024. 
I
interest waiver pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a 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 qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional, based upon obtaining the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree in architecture 
followed by at least five years of progressive experience as an architect. 3 See 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
The Director also found that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. 
The issues on appeal are whether the Petitioner has established the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor, whether she is well-positioned to advance it, and whether, on balance, waiving the job offer 
requirement would benefit the United States. The Petitioner proposes to continue her career as an 
architect. The Petitioner states that she intends to work on large-scale industrial, commercial, 
infrastructure, and residential projects and will incorporate sustainable architecture techniques in her 
work. The Petitioner also states that she will offer trainings in sustainable architecture and "green" 
building methods. 
In determining that the record did not demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor, 
the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed employment activities stand 
to have a broader impact on the field. The Director concluded that the claims in the Petitioner's 
professional plan and in the letters of recommendation were not sufficiently supported by independent, 
objective documentary evidence in the record. For example, the Director noted that the record does 
not contain evidence to support the claim, stated by one of the Petitioner's recommenders, that the 
Petitioner has "revolutionized the industry with her methods." The Director also found that there was 
not sufficient evidence in the record to support the claim from the Petitioner's professional plan that 
the endeavor will "significantly contribute to the U.S. economy through industry revenue output, 
employment creation, and tax revenues." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that she disagrees with the Director's conclusions regarding the 
importance of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner states that architects who focus on sustainable 
design play a crucial role in mitigating and adapting to climate change and that the Petitioner's use of 
sustainable techniques in her architectural projects demonstrates the broader implications of her work 
on the field. The Petitioner also claims on appeal that the proposed endeavor has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers and will broadly enhance societal welfare. 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 Because the Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional, the Director did not 
make a finding as to whether the Petitioner established that she is an individual of exceptional ability. 
2 
processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 889. Additionally, an endeavor that is regionally focused may nevertheless have national 
importance, such as an endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director that the record does not establish the proposed 
endeavor's national importance. As to the Petitioner's claims regarding the importance of sustainable 
design and architecture methods, we conclude that these claims are not sufficient to establish the 
national importance of the endeavor. In support of these claims, the Petitioner relies upon evidence 
relating to the global problem of climate change and the potential impact that sustainable building 
techniques in general can have on addressing it. However, in determining national importance, the 
relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will 
work; instead, in determining national importance, we focus on the potential prospective impact of the 
"specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See id. The Petitioner's claims here, 
and the evidence in support them, help establish only the importance of the field of sustainable 
architecture, rather than the importance of the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor. Although the 
Petitioner states that she will offer trainings in sustainable architecture methods and will implement 
those methods in her own projects, this does not demonstrate that the potential prospective impact of 
the Petitioner's endeavor rises to the level of national importance. For example, the Petitioner has not 
provided evidence that she intends to develop, implement, or teach any new processes or techniques 
in sustainable design and architecture that could result in advances in the field or otherwise increase 
the impact of the proposed endeavor. 
The same is true regarding the Petitioner's claim that her proposed endeavor will broadly enhance 
societal welfare. In support of this claim, the Petitioner again relies on claims related to the importance 
of sustainable architecture in general, asserting that "green buildings can enhance occupant health and 
comfort, improve indoor air quality, minimize strain on local utility infrastructure, and improve overall 
quality of life." The Petitioner further states that her projects "will create buildings that favor the 
health and well-being of users." Again, the Petitioner's claims focus on the importance of the field of 
sustainable architecture, rather than the potential prospective impact of her specific endeavor. 
Finally, the Petitioner claims on appeal that the proposed endeavor has the significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers. In support of this, the Petitioner states that she will establish a company to offer 
her architectural design and training services and that this company will hire at least 13 full-time staff 
members within 5 years, in addition to creating additional indirect jobs by outsourcing for services 
such as accounting and marketing. However, we note that neither the Petitioner's original professional 
plan nor the updated professional plan submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE) describe specific plans to establish a company or discuss specific job creation estimates. 
Therefore, it is not clear from the record or the Petitioner's appeal brief what the evidentiary basis is 
for the Petitioner's assertion that her proposed endeavor has the potential to create a specific number 
of jobs. Moreover, the Petitioner has not established that the creation of 13 jobs in 5 years has the 
potential to result in benefits to the regional or national economy that would rise to the level of national 
importance as contemplated by Matter of Dhanasar. Id. As such, we conclude that the Petitioner's 
unsupported assertion, which appears to have been made for the first time on appeal, is not sufficient 
to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
3 
Although the Petitioner asserts that she disagrees with the Director and that she has demonstrated the 
national importance of the endeavor, the Petitioner references very little specific evidence from the 
record on appeal and instead primarily states broad conclusions using language from Matter of 
Dhanasar and section 203(b )(2) of the Act, stating that the proposed endeavor "will enhance societal 
welfare" and that it "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers." But these general, conclusory 
statements are made without sufficient information or evidence to support them and are, therefore, 
insufficient for the Petitioner to meet her burden of proof The Petitioner does not explain how her 
architectural services differ from those already available on the market, offer improvements or new 
approaches that are replicable throughout the field, or otherwise would stand to broadly impact 
environment, the economy, or the architectural field beyond those clients directly served. 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor, as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework; therefore, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second 
or third Dhanasar prongs. 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 the applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the national importance requirement of the first prong of Dhanasar. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4