dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Architecture

U.S. Department of Homcland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JI)U (E 2 2005 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
'-4 
3- Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 11 53(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks 
employment as an architect. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner 
does not qualify for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and that the 
petitioner had not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national 
interest of the United States. 
On appeal, counsel notes two inconsistencies in the director's decision. The petitioner submits a new letter of 
support and an evaluation of his education and experience. We find that the petitioner does qualifL as an 
advanced degree professional but that he has not established that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the 
national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part that: 
(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) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirement of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an 
employer in the United States. 
I The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(k)(2) provides, in pertinent part: 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(i) provides: 
To show that the alien is a professional holding an advanced degree, the petition must be 
accompanied by: 
Page 3 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a United States advanced 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree; or 
(B) An official academic record showing that the alien has a United States 
baccalaureate degree of a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of 
letters from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least five 
years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
The petitioner holds a Bachelor's degree in architecture from Bangladesh University of Engineering and 
Technology (BUET). The petitioner submitted his degree and an evaluation of his degree concluding that it was 
equivalent to a baccalaureate issued by an accredited U.S. university. The petitioner's occupation falls within 
the pertinent regulatory definition of a profession. 
On his Form ETA-750B, the petitioner indicated that he worked as a junior architect for Riddhi Architects in 
Bangladesh from August 1992 to September 1994, as an assistant archite 
Board in Singapore from October 1994 to October 1996, as an architect for rchitects (OCBA) in 
Singapore from October 1996 to March 1999, as a 
September 1999 to September 2001 and as an architect for 
the time of filing, September 10, 2002. In support of 
letters. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that he was an advanced degree professional 
because he did not submit an evaluation of his education and experience. The petitioner does so on appeal. The 
evaluation reiterates that the petitioner's foreign degree is equivalent to a baccalaureate degree issued by an 
accredited U.S. university and concludes that the petitioner's education and at least five years of progressive 
experience are equivalent to a Master's degree issued by an accredited U.S. university. 
As stated above, the evidence required to demonstrate the equivalent of an advanced degree is a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree or foreign equivalent evidence was in the record at the time 
the director issued his decision. Specifically OCBA, confirms that the petitioner 
worked there from October 1996 to P.E., President of Sami Engineering, 
Inc., confirms that the petitioner worked for that firm "for a two-year period during which time he "was duly 
promoted." In a letter dated May 10, 2004 that accompanied the Form 1-485 Application to Register Permanent 
Residence or Adjust Status, filed after the etition but before the director's final decision and incorporated into 
the record of proceedings, 
P 
Principal of Lance Bailey and Associates, Inc., asserts that the 
petitioner has been working t ere since October 1, 2001. These letters attest to more than five years of 
progressive experience. Moreover, that conclusion is now supported by the evaluation submitted on appeal. 
In light of the above, the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
remaining issue is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a 
labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, Congress did not 
provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the Judiciary merely noted in its 
report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by increasing the number and 
proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States economically and otherwise. . . ." 
S. Rep. No. 55, 101 st Cong., 1st Sess., 1 1 (1989). 
Supplementary information to the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), published 
at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (November 29, 1991)' states: 
The Service believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as possible, 
although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must make a showing 
significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national benefit" [required of aliens 
seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest with the alien to establish that 
exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the national interest. Each case is to be 
judged on its own merits. 
The decision in Matter ofNew York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Comm. 1998), sets 
forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, it 
must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must be shown 
that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that 
the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker 
having the same minimum qualifications. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges onprospective national benefit, it clearly must be 
established that the alien's past record justifies projections of hture benefit to the national interest. The 
petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is used here to require future 
contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior achievements, 
and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, school architecture. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that the director was inconsistent regarding whether the proposed benefits of the 
petitioner's work was national in scope. We acknowledge that the director's discussion on this issue could 
have been clearer. When read carefully, however, it is apparent that the director concluded that the 
"proposed benefit" (emphasis added) would be national in scope but, in evaluating the final prong, the 
director questioned whether the petitioner had demonstrated that he would actually be able to provide 
benefits that were national in scope. As stated by the director, the final prong, whether the petitioner will 
benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an available U.S. worker with the same minimum 
qualifications, is the only prong specific to the alien as opposed to his occupation in general. Thus, the 
director's different conclusions are not inherently contradictory. We will evaluate both conclusions below. 
Initially, counsel noted the importance of education as demonstrated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 
2001 and efforts by 3 1 states to reduce class size, requiring school construction. Counsel then discusses the 
petitioner's specific projects, more relevant to our discussion of the final prong. We have already 
acknowledged the intrinsic merit of the petitioner's work, school architecture. The issue now under 
consideration is whether a school architect has the potential for a national impact. In discussing this prong, 
Matter of New York. State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec at 2 17, n.3, provides three examples of occupations 
in fields important to the national interest but that do not have a national impact: a provider of pro bono legal 
services, a schoolteacher in one school and a cook in one restaurant. The petitioner does not claim that he 
will serve as a school architecture consultant for multiple school districts, influencing guidelines for school 
construction nationally. Rather, he claims that he will work for one architectural firm designing individual 
schools. We find such work to be similar to the examples provided in Matter of New York State Dep 't. of 
Transp., 22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3. Thus, we withdraw the director's conclusion that the proposed benefits of 
this occupation will be national in scope. 
Even if we were to conclude that the petitioner's work has the potential for benefits that are national in 
scope, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that he would do so to a greater 
extent than an available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. In evaluating this issue, we note 
that eligibility for the waiver must ultimately rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the 
position sought. In other words, we generally do not accept the argument that a given project is so important 
that any alien qualified to work on this project must also qualify for a national interest waiver. At issue is 
whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such unusual significance that the petitioner merits 
the special benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa classificatih he seeks. By seeking 
an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof. A petitioner,must demonstrate a past 
history of achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. Id. at 219, n. 6. 
The petitioner submitted his professional memberships and awards from Bangladesh Telephone, Shilpa 
Shangstha and the Institute of Architects, Bangladesh (IAB). Professional memberships and recognition from 
government entities are two of the regulatory criteria for aliens of exceptional ability, a classification that 
normally requires a labor certification. We cannot conclude that meeting two, or even the requisite three, 
criteria for that classification warrants a waiver of that requirement. Moreover, the petitioner submitted no 
evidence to establish the significance of his memberships, such as their membership requirements. We further 
note that the awards were issued in December 1989 and November 1992, whereas the petitioner only obtained 
his degree in August 1992 and had not yet worked on school construction projects. 
The petitioner also submitted confirmation that the petitioner served as a member of a Jury Board during the 
1997-1998 academic year at BUET. The record does not demonstrate that being asked to serve on a jury at your 
alma mater is indicative of an influence on the field as a whole. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an article authored by him purportedly published in the IAB newsletter in 
1997. The article is not about school architecture and is not indicative of his influence in that area, or any other 
area, of architecture. Moreover, the copy of the article submitted bears no indication that it was published or 
distributed. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Finall , the etitioner submitted several reference letters, all from his immediate circle of colleagues. 
D 
the petitioner's design-studio teacher at BUET, asserts that the petitioner was an active member 
an worked on numerous building projects throughout" Bangladesh. oes not explain how 
the ability to work in one's field is necessarily indicative of an influence on the field as a whole. 
a member of the petitioner's thesis committee and executive director of Riddhi Architects and 
Associates of Bangladesh oner worked, provides more detail regarding the petitioner's work in 
that country. Specifically, characterizes the petitioner's thesis project as "a novel aesthetic and 
technical approach toward aquarium design not only by most efficiently preserving Bangladesh's deltaic marine 
life, but also by transforming a highly technical building into a major tourist attraction." 
states that he and the petitioner collaborated on "a number of trend-setting residential an de commercial projects 
that drew national interest.,' otes the importance of the petitioner's experience with designing 
buildings for dense urban conditions. These assertions are not supported by general or trade media coverage of 
the petitioner's projects in Bangladesh or comparable evidence of the petitioner's influence in the field in that 
country. While the petitioner need not demonstrate the type of major media coverage primarily about himself 
required for the more exclusive aliens of extraordinary ability classification pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of 
the Act, it can be expected that a truly tend-setting project would receive some coverage in the general or trade 
media. 
a senior architect at OCBA, discusses the petitioner's work at that firm. Specifically, the 
pet~tloner worked on designs for five schools. The firm assigned the petitioner to study U.S. school 
architecture in 1996. He also designed the West View Primary School, "a renowned work of OCBA in 
recent years." Based on this design, OCBA assigned the petitioner another school project. oes 
not explain how the petitioner's new assignment at his job after completing an earlier assignment represents 
anything more than sufficient competence to remain employed. 
Regarding the petitioner's employment in Alabama, the petitioner submitted the aforementioned letter from 
sserts that the petitioner has "outstanding abili es eci ly in school design."- 
ists 11 school projects on which the petitioner worked. While I_ ddu sserts that these projects 
is not apparent from the list that any were outside a small block of 
southern States. concludes that the petitioner is "highly skilled in using Auto-cad and 
ell as graphic software with his architectural and engineering 
a construction manager who became familiar with the petitioner while 
he was familiarizing himself with U.S. architecture in San Francisco, provides similar information. Simple 
exposure to advanced technology. however, constitutes, essentially, occupational training which can be 
articulated on an application for a labor certification. Id. at 221. Assuming a shortage of architects skilled in 
these programs, such determinations fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. See id. 
asserts that the petitioner "stands out among architects for his combination of architectural 
knowledge and steel detailing experience." Special or unusual knowledge or training, while perhaps attractive 
rospective U.S. employer, does not inherently meet the national interest threshold. In. at 221 .- 
further asserts that the petitioner's contribution to the construction industry has been "praised by local 
and federal boards, including National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts." = 
does not explain how this praise was expressed, whether through a staff member who communicated it 
privately or through an official certificate, award or honor. The primary source of this praise is not in the 
record. Thus, we are unable to determine the significance of this praise. 
11, a senior architect a-nd Associates, provides more detail regarding the petitioner's 
projects at that firm. tats: 
My most recent work with [the petitioner] has been in the design and coordination of Thomson 
Elementary School, located in downtown Washington, DC. This project was very unique. It 
involves the complete renovation of an existing school that is listed on the Historical Registry 
of the Historical Preservation Office. Moreover, it involves the construction of a new addition, 
which will more than double the exiting square foot area. This school will be the first of its 
kind to provide both underground parking and elevated play areas. 
While the project may be unique, the petitioner has not established that is has been influential. For example, 
there is no evidence that architectural or school trade journals have featured this design or that other school 
districts around the United States have expressed interest in similar designs as standards for their own schools. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director failed to consider the petitioner's projects outside of the Washington 
D.C. area and his participation in national competitions "with great success." Working at firms in more than 
one location does not necessarily translate into an impact on the field as a whole. The record contains little 
evidence that the petitioner had competed successfully in national competitions as of the date of filing. 
The letters submitted on appeal include a new letter and a letter fro 
Manager for the Washington approved the 
petitioner's ceremonial stage design. leading roll or LBA "helped 
I,BA to win [a] Howard University The record does not 
reflect that either event took place prior to the date of filing. As suih, this-evidence is not relevant to the 
petitioner's eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg. Comm. 1971). Moreover, it is inherent to the field of architecture to secure projects. It is presumed that 
government agencies are a major source of contracts in the Washington D.C. area. Thus, it is not clear how 
acquiring approval for a government project demonstrates an influence on the field as a whole. In addition, the 
record contains no evidence regarding the significance of the design competition sponsored by Howard 
University. For example, the petitioner has not established whether winning desi s ar selected nationally or 
receive national coverage such that they might influence the field as a whole. mappears to discuss the 
petitioner's participation with a local foundation that occurred after the date of filing. This participation does 
not appear to reflect on the petitioner's eligibility as of the date of filing. Id. 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person qualified to 
engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job offer based on 
national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to grant national interest 
waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than on the merits of the individual 
alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement 
of an approved labor certification will be in the national interest of the United States. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
fj 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
This denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States employer accompanied by a 
labor certification issued by the Department of Labor, appropriate supporting evidence and fee. 
Page 8 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.