dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 6, 2024 In Re: 31360289 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of architecture, 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 that the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver because he did not demonstrate the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner later filed an appeal that we dismissed. 
The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. In these proceedings, it 
is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon 
review, we will dismiss the combined motions. 
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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion, 1 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. 
In dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we acknowledged the substantial merit of the Petitioner's 
intention to develop a company to provide construction management and architectural consultancy 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
services in the United States.2 However, we also detailed the reasons why the evidence ofrecord did 
not establish that the Petitioner's proposal to operate a consultancy company met the standard of 
national importance set forth under the first prong of Dhanasar. We explained that, in determining 
national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which 
the individual will work, but "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner's claim of national importance initially relied on 
industry reports and articles; on appeal, he continued to rely on that documentation, contending that 
the national importance of his endeavor was supported by relationships between immigration, 
entrepreneurship, job creation, and economic growth. We explained that merely working in a 
particular field is insufficient to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. We also 
observed that, while an expert opinion and recommendation letters highlighted the Petitioner's 
experience, they did not discuss how his endeavor to operate an architectural consultancy firm would 
have a national economic impact or facilitate job creation attributable to his company. Further, we 
reasoned that highlighted evidence of the Petitioner's past experience and contributions to employers 
was not relevant to the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, but to the second, which focuses on 
whether an individual is well positioned to advance an endeavor. We also discussed how the Petitioner 
did not establish benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
As per Dhanasar, "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and recognize 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. The Petitioner's business plan anticipated creating 44 jobs 
paying a total of$8,199,873 by the company's fifth year of operation, and he claimed that his company 
would attract investors to economically distressed areas to ease the housing shortage in New Jersey. 
We explained that the business plan by itself did not sufficiently detail the basis for its projections and 
specify how those projections would be realized. We determined that the petitioner did not provide 
evidence to corroborate his statements or the claims outlined in his business plan. We noted that the 
Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In our prior dismissal, we ultimately concluded that the Petitioner did not show that his proposed 
endeavor would nationally impact the industry or benefit the regional or national economy. Since the 
record did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, as 
required under Dhanasar 's first prong, we determined that he had not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. We also reserved his appellate arguments regarding his 
eligibility under Dhanasar 's second and third prongs, as considering them would have served no 
meaningful purpose. 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 ofL-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). For the sake of brevity, we incorporate our 
2 As the Director did not provide a determination concerning the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor. we provided 
an analysis of the evidence and concluded that his endeavor had substantial merit. 
2 
previous analysis of the record and will repeat only certain facts and evidence as necessary to address 
the Petitioner's assertions on motion. 3 
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). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a statement asserting the following: 
The appeal dismissal decision is deficient, as it does not evaluate all the arguments 
presented by the Petitioner in the appeal, that would, undoubtedly, lead to a different 
conclusion, proving that the Petitioner not only qualifies for the requested 
classification, but also meets all requirements for the National Interest Waiver. 
The Petitioner has not provided new facts or documentary evidence showing that he meets the 
"national importance" requirement ofDhanasar's first prong, and therefore he has not overcome our 
prior determination. The motion to reopen is therefore dismissed as the Petitioner's has not met the 
requirements of such a motion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, while the Petitioner asserts that our decision was "deficient" because it did "not evaluate 
all the arguments presented by the Petitioner in the appeal," he does not identify what arguments we 
did not evaluate. He also does not explain how our decision to dismiss his appeal was erroneous, nor 
does he address whether our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of 
the decision. We emphasize that, to establish merit for reconsideration of our latest decision, a 
petitioner must state the reasons why the petitioner believes the most recent decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy and specifically cite laws, regulations, precedent decisions, 
and/or binding policies they believe we misapplied in our prior decision. The Petitioner has not done 
so here. 
In light of the above, we conclude that this motion does not meet all the requirements of a motion to 
reconsider and must therefore be dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
3 Our previous decision in this matter was ID# 28819066 (AAO NOV. 17, 2023). 
3 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4