dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 11, 2023 In Re: 28453507 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an architectural designer and entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well 
as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 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. The Director concluded that the record 
did not demonstrate his eligibility for the requested 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. An 
advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, 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 the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
I 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion1, 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 Petitioner proposes to establish an architecture and interior design business in the United States 
having previously worked as an architectural designer in Brazil. 
A. Member of Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Director did not make a determination as to the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established her eligibility for EB-2 
classification. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence to qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. To qualify as a member of the professions, an individual must meet "one of the occupations 
listed in section 10l(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 into the 
occupation." 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2). 2 The record does not establish that the Petitioner's occupation as 
an architectural designer, requires the minimum of a U.S. bachelor's degree or its foreign equivalent 
for entry into the occupation. The Petitioner maintains that her prospective architectural designer 
position comports with the duties and responsibilities of those employed in the "Architectural and 
Civil Drafters" SOC Code 17-3011 occupation. The U.S. Department of Labor states that the 
education requirements for this occupation are "training in vocational schools, related on-the-job 
experience, or an associate's degree." See U.S. Department of Labor, O*NET Summary Report for 
"Architectural and Civi I Drafters," https://www.onetonline.org/1 i nk/summary/17-3011.00. Since a 
U.S. bachelor's degree or its foreign equivalent is not the minimum requirement for entry into the 
Petitioner's intended occupation of architectural designer, she has not established that she qualifies as 
a member of the professions. 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2). 
Additionally, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has at least a U.S. bachelor's degree or 
a foreign equivalent degree. The Petitioner earned a title of urbanist architect from Universidade de 
lin Brazil on August 29, 2014, and a certificate for the completion of a graduate program 
in interior design from Universidade.__~ ____ _.in Brazil on March 12, 2019. She has also 
worked as an architectural designer in Brazil and in the United States. The Petitioner submitted copies 
of her certificate and degree, the respective academic transcripts, work experience letters, and an 
academic evaluation from Morningside Evaluations and Consulting dated October 12, 2022. The 
academic evaluation states, "On the basis of the credibility of Universidade I lthe 
1 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). 
2 Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act states "[t]he tenn 'profession' shall include but not limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, 
physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
2 
Universidade I = I and the hours of academic coursework, it is the judgment of 
Morningside Evaluations and Consulting that [the Petitioner] has attained the equivalent of a Bachelor 
of Science in Architecture from an accredited institution of higher education in the United States." 
(emphasis omitted). 
The plain language of the regulations indicates that an advanced degree equivalency must include a 
single bachelor's degree, without substituting experience for education or combining lesser 
educational credentials. The regulations require five years of progressive experience to follow "[a] 
United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).3 Here, 
the evaluation combines the Petitioner's educational credentials, her title of urbanist architect and her 
certificate in interior design, to be the foreign equivalent of a single U.S. bachelor's degree. The 
Petitioner's combined educational credentials do not qualify under the regulations as the foreign 
equivalent of a single U.S. bachelor's degree.4 
Since the record does not show that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions or that she 
holds a U.S. baccalaureate degree or foreign equivalent degree, the Petitioner has not established that 
she is eligible to be classified as a member of the professions possessing an advanced degree. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Director found that while 
the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, she did not establish that the 
proposed endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. The Director 
further found that the Petitioner did not establish that she is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, and that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements 
of a job offer, and thus of a labor ce1iification. Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver of the labor certification would be 
in the national interest.5 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
3 When introducing the EB-2 regulations. the fom1er Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) explained that "the 
proposed rule does not provide a procedure to allow experience alone to substitute for either a baccalaureate degree or an 
advanced degree." Proposed Rule on Employment-Based Petitions, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30706 (July 15, 1991). In 
response to stakeholder input, the I NS reviewed the Immigration Act of 1990 and found the proposed regulations consistent 
with Congressional intent. The INS stated, "[B]oth the Act and its legislative history make clear that, in order to qualify 
as a professional under the third classification or to have experience equating to an advanced degree under the second, an 
alien must have at least a bachelor's degree." INS Final Rule on Employment-Based Petitions, 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60900 (Nov. 29, 1991) (emphasis added). Thus, an advanced degree professional must have at least a U.S. bachelor's 
degree or a single foreign degree equivalent. 
4 We note that even if the Petitioner's educational credentials qualified under the regulations as the foreign equivalent of a 
U.S. bachelor's degree, the Petitioner would not qualify as having at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate 
experience. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The Petitioner's certificate in interior design was earned in March 2019, and this 
Form 1-140 petition was filed approximately two years afterwards in July 2021. Therefore, the Petitioner could not have 
had at least five years of post-baccalaureate experience at the time of filing this petition. 
5 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
health, or education. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 
at 889. 
The Petitioner proposes to establish an architecture and interior design business for which she would 
be its company manager and an architectural designer. The business plan states that the Petitioner's 
business would "focus on delivering affordable high-standard architecture and interior design 
projects." The business would harness "the evolution of the perception and utilization of interior 
spaces fostered by new living/working arrangements consequence of the post-COVID-19 Coronavirus 
Pandemic." ( emphasis omitted). We agree with the Director that the Petitioner's endeavor has 
substantial merit. 
With respect to the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Director stated, "The 
prospective potential impact of her proposed endeavor has not been shown to have broader 
implications to the overall field to establish its national importance." The Director further stated, 
"[T]he Petitioner has not shown that her level of employment will have the potential to provide 
substantial positive economic effects to the region her [sic] business is located or to the nation." 
Therefore, the Director found that Petitioner did not meet her burden in establishing the national 
importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director "imposed novel substantive and evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations." The Petitioner argues that the Director did 
not apply the proper preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, instead imposing a stricter 
standard. The Petitioner further argues that the Director erred by not giving "due regard" to the 
evidence submitted, specifically: the Petitioner's resume showing her experience; her business plan 
showing her experience, credentials, accomplishments, and projections of the benefits offered to the 
United States; her work in the field to show her contributions in her field; letters of recommendation; 
and industry reports and articles. Upon de nova review, we find the record does not demonstrate that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar 's first prong. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that her proposed endeavor has national importance, particularly 
because it will "generate substantial ripple effects upon key business activities on behalf of the United 
States - namely, serving their business development and business functions of U.S. companies." She 
argues that her "skills have proven to be of significant importance by influencing commercial markets, 
facilitating foreign investment activities, and contributing to the business and engineering sectors in 
the [United States]." 
4 
The Petitioner stresses her academic record and career experience to show she provides "innovative 
architectural solutions for clients" and works "on projects that have a significant socioeconomic 
impact." However, the Petitioner's reliance on her academic credentials, professional experience, and 
achievements to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor is misplaced. Her 
academic credentials, professional experience, and achievements relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the 
Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 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. See id. at 889. 
With the petition, the Petitioner submitted a business plan contending her proposed endeavor has 
national importance based on potential economic and societal benefits. The business' main product 
would be interior renovation and decorating for residential and commercial projects. The main target 
clients would be "mid- to low-income segments whose living arrangements have suddenly been altered 
by the pandemic," with a secondary focus "targeting commercial projects, office interior design, and 
the design industry directly connected with the real estate market, especially the vacation/short-term 
rentals .... " The business would focus on offering functional and elegant project planning at 
affordable prices, generate jobs for U.S. workers, establish an office in an underutilized business 
community of I lfocus on sustainable projects which are environmentally responsible, and 
share knowledge of sustainable projects with high school students. 
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 record 
does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the field of 
architectural design, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking may have national importance 
for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. The evidence 
does not suggest that the Petitioner's architecture and interior design business would impact the 
architectural design field more broadly. 
The record does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor would provide economic or societal 
benefits that rise to the level of national importance. The business plan explains that its main office 
would be in the underutilized business community of I lso that it can "create jobs in a region 
where they are mostly needed." However, the plan also explains that it would serve Florida 
communities outside of the I I area, including I II land then later expand to Texas and California. The business plan projects that in five years the 
business will hire eight full-time employees and approximately seven part-time employees; pay over 
1.8 million dollars in payroll and taxes; and generate almost five million dollars in revenue. However, 
the record does not sufficiently detai I the basis for its ti nancial and staffing projections, or adequately 
explain how these projections will be realized. 
The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support her claims that her business' future 
staffing levels and business activities stand to provide substantial economic and societal benefits to an 
underutilized area of I I Florida and the United States. The Petitioner's claims that her 
architecture and interior design business will benefit the U.S. economy and enhance societal welfare 
5 
I 
has not been established through independent and objective evidence. The Petitioner's statements are 
not sufficient to demonstrate her endeavor has the potential to provide economic and societal benefits 
to the United States. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner expresses her desire to work with sustainable projects in order to be environmentally 
responsible, and to contribute economically to the United States and an underutilized business area of
IFlorida. However, she has not established with specific, probative evidence that her 
endeavor will have broader implications in her field, will have significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers, or will have other substantial positive economic and societal effects to Florida or the United 
States. Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record lacks 
evidence showing that creating 15 direct jobs and paying wages and tax revenue of 1.8 million dollars 
over a five-year period rises to the level of national importance. Also, without sufficient documentary 
evidence that her proposed job duties as the company manager and architecture designer for her 
business would impact the architectural design industry more broadly, rather than benefiting her 
business and her proposed clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the 
evidence that her proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
The Petitioner further claims on appeal that the national importance of her proposed endeavor is 
evidenced in industry reports and articles. The Petitioner stresses on appeal the articles and reports 
relating to the economic benefits of immigrants in the U.S. workforce, immigrant entrepreneurs, and 
foreign direct investment in the United States. The record also includes articles and reports relating 
to real estate investment; the shortage of affordable homes; the construction industry; the U.S. 
infrastructure; business in Brazil; the status of science, technology, engineering, and math; trade and 
globalization; and engineering and its economic growth. We recognize the importance of foreign 
direct investments and the real estate market, and the significant contributions from immigrants who 
have become successful entrepreneurs. However, working with real estate as an architectural designer 
and starting an architecture and interior design business are insufficient to establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
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." 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. The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact, 
job creation, or societal benefits specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The record includes the Petitioner's resume and recommendation letters from former clients. The 
letters mainly discuss the Petitioner's work experience on client projects and her knowledge and 
professionalism as an architectural designer. The letters convey her architectural expertise and the 
importance of her work to specific projects. However, these documents relate to the second prong of 
the Dhanasar framework. See Id. We acknowledge that the Petitioner provided architectural design 
services for her clients in the past. However, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and 
evidence based on these recommendation letters to demonstrate the prospective impact of her proposed 
6 
endeavor will rise to the level of national importance, rather than only impacting her clients. The 
letters do not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work will have national or global implications in the 
field of architectural design. 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her business and her 
future clients to impact the field of architectural design or any other industries or the U.S. economy 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Beyond general assertions, she has 
not demonstrated that the work she proposes to undertake as the company manager and architectural 
designer of her proposed architecture and interior design business offers original innovations that 
contribute to advancements in her industry or otherwise has broader implications for her field. The 
economic and societal benefits that the Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors, and the 
Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between her proposed business' architecture 
and interior design work and the claimed economic and societal results. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding her eligibility under the second and third prongs. 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). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, or that she has met the requisite first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that the Petitioner is not eligible for a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7