dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 22, 2024 In Re: 2984 7734 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an architect and project manager, seeks 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 although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, she had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner shows: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• 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 concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the 
Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
In a definitive statement submitted with the petition, the Petitioner stated that she intends to work as 
an architect and project manager in the United States. Specifically, she stated as follows: 
My career plan in the United States is to continue my career working with American 
companies that require my specialized knowledge, experience, and expertise. I intend 
to continue designing, maintaining good working relationships, and identifying any 
opportunities for development in the architecture and project management sector. My 
goal is to continue my work coordinating all architecture projects, utilizing my 
experience and overall success to lead companies in developing new architecture 
projects, ultimately benefiting the United States economy. 
My over 13-year career to date has been significant. If my waiver is granted, I will 
contribute directly to the field of architecture and project management, helping to 
construct and design functional and aesthetic spaces for U.S. companies, institutions, 
organizations, and infrastructure, among many things. In reality, I am not competing 
against other U.S. Architects and Project Managers, since my experience lies in the 
areas of architecture, urban planning, project management, sales, corporate and 
residential markets, civil construction, project execution, interior design, detailed 
design, logistics, product storage, supply chain and procurement. I would be of great 
assistance in providing the much needed demand for expert architects. 
She also stated that her proposed endeavor would potentially impact the United States by 
creating jobs and tax revenue, facilitating cross-border architectural projects by helping U.S. 
companies negotiate contracts with international companies particularly in Latin America, and 
timely completing large and highly complex projects. Regarding potential economic benefits, 
she claimed that her proposed endeavor will seize the market and investment opportunities for 
U.S. companies and lucrative markets in Latin American countries, reduce operating costs, 
increase property values, optimize the structural integrity of buildings, and generate U.S. tax 
revenue and create American jobs. 
2 
The initial filing also included copies of the Petitioner's academic credentials and resume, a job offer 
letter from a Florida home improvement company offering her contract work as an architect and 
project manager, an expert opinion letter, letters of recommendation, and industry articles and reports 
in support of her eligibility. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), noting that while the Petitioner's evidence was 
sufficient to establish that her proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record was insufficient to 
demonstrate that the proposed endeavor had national importance. 2 The Director determined that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor would impact the regional or national 
population at a level consistent with national importance. As a result, the Director requested a detailed 
description of the proposed endeavor in order to evaluate her request for a national interest waiver 
under the Dhanasar framework. 
In response, the Petitioner's counsel submitted a letter claiming that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor "is national in scope" because it will "generate substantial ripple effects upon key 
commercial and business activities on behalf of the United States - namely, serving the architecture 
sector." Counsel farther emphasized the Petitioner's professional history and experience, noting that 
she is uniquely qualified to advance her proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also submitted a definitive statement indicating that she intends to develop her own 
architecture firm,~---------~ Specifically, she stated that her company "will 
specialized in comprehensive architecture services by offering design and planning, project 
management, and construction supervision services." In support of this assertion, she submitted a 
copy of the company's business plan, indicating that she will serve as the company's CEO and that it 
anticipates employing 19 individuals and earning a total revenue of approximately $2.81 million by 
its fifth year of operations. The Petitioner also submitted additional industry articles and reports in 
support of her eligibility. Although she initially stated her intent to work as an architect and project 
manager for U.S. companies, her definitive statement in response to the RFE made no farther mention 
of this endeavor. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, the record did not establish that the endeavor is of national importance. Specifically, 
the Director noted that the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor had implications 
beyond her self-owned company at a level sufficient to demonstrate national importance. The Director 
farther determined that the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor would have a 
broader impact on the architecture industry, specifically noting that "benefits that are isolated to a 
single institution or locality in the United States might be so attenuated at the national level as to 
preclude a finding that the proposed endeavor has national importance." 
On appeal, counsel for the Petitioner asserts that USCIS "did not apply the proper standard of proof 
in this case, instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applied the law, to the detriment of 
the Appellant." The Petitioner also asserts, through counsel, that the Director disregarded the evidence 
2 Prior to this RFE, the Director issued an RFE noting that the Petitioner had demonstrated the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor. The second RFE, issued on December 6, 2022, advised the Petitioner that this determination had been 
made in enor and requested additional evidence to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor had national importance. 
3 
submitted, and provides a brief that emphasizes her qualifications as an entrepreneur in the architecture 
industry and asserts that the evidence of record establishes the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. 
For the reasons provided below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that they meet each 
eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I& N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what they claim is "more likely 
than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the 
preponderance standard, USCIS considers not only the quantity, but also the quality (including 
relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 
77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
Preliminarily, we note that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is material to whether the endeavor is of 
national importance. See Matter ofMichelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978); see 
also Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ). A petitioner 
may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed to make a deficient petition 
conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1988); see also 
Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
As noted above, the Petitioner introduced a new proposed endeavor in response to the RFE rather than 
establishing the national importance of the proposed endeavor described in the initial petition. The 
Petitioner's new plan in the RFE reply to develop her own architecture firm and serve as its CEO describe 
a new set of facts regarding the proposed endeavor and were presented after the filing date, and thus 
cannot retroactively establish eligibility. 3 Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner made an impermissible 
material change to her proposed endeavor. If significant material changes are made to the initial request 
for approval, a petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not 
supported by the facts in the record. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Therefore, on appeal, we will consider 
if the record demonstrates that her initial proposed endeavor - working as an architect and project 
manager for U.S. companies - has national importance. We conclude it does not. 
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 
3 The record demonstrates that her architecture firm was incorporated in Florida in~2023, nearly three years after 
the instant petition was filed. 
4 
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 her field more broadly. Id. at 893. 
As initially stated, the Petitioner intends to work as an architect and project manager for U.S. 
companies. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not duly consider certain pieces of 
evidence, such as her resume and experience, her company's business plan, her work in the field, letters 
of recommendation, and industry articles and reports, and relies primarily upon the evidence and 
arguments previously submitted. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's appellate claims, we 
nevertheless conclude that the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 4 
For example, while the Petitioner submitted letters of support from former colleagues and business 
associates that speak to her talents and accomplishments on various architecture and design projects 
undertaken by her in Brazil and Angola, none of the authors discussed the Petitioner's endeavor as 
initially stated. Instead, the authors primarily focused on the Petitioner's past work experience and 
accomplishments. Although the record contains statements regarding the Petitioner's career in the 
architecture industry, and although the letter writers praise the Petitioner's qualifications and 
commend her work, the Petitioner's experience and past accomplishments are not relevant to the first 
part of the Dhanasar framework, but to the second - whether the Petitioner is well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor. Neither the letters nor any other evidence within the record provide 
insight into how the Petitioner's endeavor to work as an architect and project manager for architecture 
firms in Florida will positively impact the region or the industry beyond her employers and their 
clients. Again, 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." Id. 
The record contains an expert opinion letter from a professor of architecture at the I 
I I who concludes that the Petitioner's proposed work has national importa'-n-ce___B_u_t_t_h__,e 
professor does not base his conclusion on the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. 
Although he recites the Petitioner's career history and accomplishments, and concludes that she "is 
very well qualified to pursue this endeavor," his findings stem from the significance of the architecture 
industry generally, and particularly note the need for architects due to the anticipated growth of 
corporate projects and government contracts in response to factors such as climate change and overall 
population increases. Under Dhanasar, however, the Petitioner must establish the national importance 
of her specific proposed endeavor, which is narrower than the overall area, field, or industry in which 
the Petitioner seeks employment. The letter did not mention the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which 
is to work as an architect and project manager for U.S. companies in Florida. The letter therefore does 
not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed U.S. work. See Matter of 
Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding that the immigration service may 
reject or afford less evidentiary weight to an expert opinion that conflicts with other information or "is 
in any way questionable"). 
4 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
The Petitioner also claims that her proposed endeavor has national importance because the United 
States faces a significant national architect shortage. In addition, the Petitioner asserts that architects 
and the field of architecture and design are extremely important to the economy and that her proposed 
endeavor will offer substantial positive economic impacts. In support of these arguments, she offered 
numerous articles and industry reports discussing immigration, entrepreneurship, the architecture 
industry, and the shortage of architects. While these articles and reports provide useful background 
information, we examine the endeavor itself to evaluate its broader impact. These materials do not 
specifically describe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its potential impact, but rather amount to 
background information about general subjects. Furthermore, 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." Id. at 
889. Here, the Petitioner has not established how her individual employment would affect national 
architecture employment levels or the U.S. economy more broadly consistent with national 
importance. It is important to note that the shortage of architects does not render her proposed 
endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified 
workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
We further note that the Petitioner's counsel refers to these reports and articles throughout the record, 
asserting that the beneficial implications and national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor as an architect and project manager, and entrepreneur in the architecture industry, are largely 
reported by institutions of distinguished reputation and major media. On appeal, counsel emphasizes 
the Petitioner's experience in the field and asserts that her proposed endeavor "aligns with the national 
interest by promoting architectural development, economic growth, and job creation." Assertions of 
counsel, however, do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 
1988) ( citing Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). Counsel's statements 
must be substantiated in the record with independent evidence, which may include affidavits and 
declarations. 
The Petitioner has not shown that she intends to pursue her initial endeavor and the evidence of record 
does not demonstrate that the endeavor realistically has significant potential to employ U.S. workers 
or otherwise offer substantial positive economic benefits for the United States. Consequently, the 
record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. Because the identified reason for dismissal is dis positive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's remaining arguments concerning 
eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 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 an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
6 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7