dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Architecture And Sustainable Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 23, 2024 In Re: 29339509 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a consultant in the fields of architecture and sustainable construction project 
management, 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. § 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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director determined the Petitioner 
qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional but concluded that he did not 
establish bis eligibility for a 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 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 Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&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. An 
advanced degree is defined, in part, as any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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 
ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, 1 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 a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree and the record supports this conclusion. 2 Accordingly, the 
sole issue to be addressed on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver ofjob offer 
requirement, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner demonstrated the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor 
under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework but concluded that he did not establish the proposed 
endeavor's national importance. 3 On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and a brief in 
which he asserts that he has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, his eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. 
For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor and therefore has not established that he merits, as a 
matter of discretion, a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. While we do not discuss 
all submitted evidentiary exhibits individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner is an architect and sustainable construction 
project manager who had approximately 14 
years of professional experience in the field at the time of filing. He has a master's degree in 
architectural project management, a bachelor's degree in architecture, and postgraduate diplomas in 
project management, land markets and policy, and sustainable construction management. In addition, 
the Petitioner provided evidence that he possesses a Project Management Professional (PMP) 
qualification and is a LJ4 Accredited Professional in Homes and Building Design and 
Construction. 
In a statement submitted with the petition, the Petitioner indicated his intent to establish a Florida­
based "professional consulting practice in the fields of Architecture and Sustainable Construction 
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 The Petitioner. who completed a master's degree in architectural project management at a United Kingdom university, 
established that his foreign degree is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree. See 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2) (defining "advanced 
degree"). 
3 Although the Director's decision did not include determinations regarding the Petitioner's eligibility under the second 
and third Dhanasar prongs, we note that the Director stated in their request for evidence that "the evidence submitted 
demonstrates the etitioner is well- ositioned to advance the proposed endeavor." 
4....,__________________ .....,.....,...is al !certification and rating system developed 
by~----------~ 
2 
I 
project Management," noting that he would "provide a range of solutions for individual, corporate and 
government clients." The Petitioner explained that the focus of his consulting services will be "to 
enhance the environmental, social and economic performance of real estate projects and their broader 
impact on the environment and the community ... through a structured roadmap following I 
guidelines and encouraging project certification." He farther stated he would be "helping government 
agencies to plan, create, and develop strategies to effectively incentivize sustainable construction." 
Finally, the Petitioner stated he would provide training to other professionals and team members "so 
they can achieve their own I lprofessional accreditation and become replicators of sustainable 
construction practices" which would lead to "the usage and implementation of thel Isystem on 
more and more projects." 
In response to the Director's request for a more detailed description of the proposed endeavor, the 
Petitioner stated his proposed professional consulting practice is intended "to facilitate the wider 
adoption of Sustainable Construction techniques in more segments of the market and maximize their 
overall benefit for the U.S. and the world." He stated that his work will "support advancements in 
[the] field by working with industry leaders to influence major adoption and replication of these 
practices." 
Finally, the Petitioner mentioned that his practice will create direct jobs for "assistants, engineers, 
commissioning agents, drafters, project document administrators, etc." He farther stated that "any 
new Sustainable Construction project is a source of skilled well-paid jobs, and my duty is to influence 
and advance their market penetration to transform what otherwise would be a traditional project, thus 
indirectly making way to job creation in industrial scales." 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor, 
but not its national importance. Specifically, the Director concluded that the evidence did not convey 
an understanding of how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to have broader implications in his 
field. The Director acknowledged evidence establishing the importance of sustainable construction 
practices and their economic, environmental, and societal impacts, but noted that, in determining 
national importance, the relevant focus is not on the industry, field or profession in which the 
individual will work, but rather on the specific endeavor they propose to undertake. They concluded 
that "while the petitioner's intent may be to impact the broader field/industry by providing his 
consulting services, the past record and the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor 
point to a limited impact within the companies and/or clients that engage the petitioner for his 
consulting services" and therefore the record "does not support the petitioner's proposed endeavor will 
influence the architecture and sustainable construction field/industry." In addition, the Director 
determined that the record lacked evidence to establish "a strong connection between the proposed 
3 
endeavor activities" and any substantial positive economic effects on a level commensurate with 
national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "misinterprets the spirt of my endeavor as being a 
mere professional practice within the field of Sustainable Architecture," noting that beyond providing 
consulting services, his endeavor is "to advance Sustainable Construction practices within the overall 
Construction Industry." The Petitioner also maintains that the Director placed undue focus on the 
direct economic impact and job creation aspects of the proposed endeavor, and in doing so, overlooked 
other relevant evidence and factors that establish its national importance under Dhanasar' s first prong. 
He contends that "creating jobs was never a main or constitutive part of my endeavor," but rather his 
intent is "to advance sustainable construction to a bigger market share in the whole of the construction 
industry" as an "agent of change" who will advance improved design and building practices in the 
broader field. 
The record includes media articles, government publications, and industry reports that establish the 
U.S. government's commitment to significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 
in accordance with The Paris Agreement. This evidence details federal government initiatives that 
aim to achieve this goal, the negative environmental impacts of the traditional construction industry, 
the significant benefits of adopting sustainable construction practices and standards, and the industry's 
progress in adopting these standards. The submitted articles also explain how a reduction in carbon 
emissions will not only have important environmental impacts, but also significant benefits for societal 
welfare, public health, and the economy. This evidence supports the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor to provide consulting services in the sustainable construction 
management field has substantial merit. 
However, as noted by the Director, in evaluating 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" and its potential prospective 
impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Therefore, while we recognize the important role of 
sustainable construction project managers in helping to reduce the negative environmental 
consequences of building and construction projects, the Petitioner's intent to work in this field alone 
is not sufficient to establish the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor. We also 
acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that his proposed endeavor "is specifically in line with the 
advancement of government and ... industry goals" pertaining to the wider adoption of sustainable 
construction practices. Nevertheless, we must still evaluate the potential prospective impact of the 
endeavor based on the factors set forth in Dhanasar to ensure that the potential prospective impact of 
his work is commensurate with the first prong's national importance requirement; the fact that the 
Petitioner works in a profession or field that is aligned with national initiatives is not sufficient to 
establish his eligibility under the first prong. 
An endeavor that has national or global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances, may have national importance. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner indicates that the potential prospective impact of 
his work is related to the advancement and increased market penetration of sustainable construction 
practices within the overall construction industry, and therefore has broad implications for his field. 
Specifically, the Petitioner states that, beyond working as a consultant providing architectural and 
4 
project management services to clients on sustainable building and construction projects, he will be 
using his influence to advance improvements in the broader industry. In this regard, he states that his 
"endeavor to make Sustainable Construction practices more adopted and replicable constitutes in itself 
an improvement of traditional manufacturing practices of the Construction Industry" and is sufficient 
to meet Dhanasar 's national importance requirement. The Petitioner maintains that the Director 
disregarded evidence intended to show "how my endeavor indeed represents an improvement in the 
Construction Industry's manufacturing processes," and "how my influence in national U.S. 
organizations allows me to be an agent of change with professional initiatives toward this goal." He 
asserts that "there is no doubt about my position as an agent of change and influence in the broader 
industry." 
The record, which contains supporting letters from the Petitioner's past colleagues and clients, 
establishes that he is an experienced architect and sustainable construction project manager who enjoys 
a strong reputation in his field and whose work and subject matter expertise is highly regarded by 
those who have worked with him in the past. Evidence of a petitioner's skills, expertise, and record 
of success generally relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the [petitioner]" and whether they are well-positioned to advance it. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. A determination regarding the claimed national importance of a 
specific proposed endeavor generally cannot be inferred based on the Petitioner's past achievements, 
just as it cannot be inferred based on general claims about the importance of a given field or industry. 
The Petitioner also submits evidence that he has been consulting remotely on more than a dozen 
architecture and construction projects in the United States that are being designed and implemented 
according tol Istandards. However, the record does not contain sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate how his specific proposed endeavor would have the influence to result in 
industry-wide improvements in construction industry practices at a level commensurate with national 
importance. The Petitioner did not, for instance, elaborate on his claim that he enjoys a level of 
influence within "National U.S. organizations" that would allow him to act as an "agent of change" in 
the market or significantly impact the prevalence of sustainable building practices in the U.S. 
construction industry. 
In his initial statement, the Petitioner indicated that beyond proving consulting services to clients in 
the U.S. building and construction sector, he will be: (1) "helping government agencies to plan, create 
and develop strategies to effectively incentivize sustainable construction"; and (2) shadng hisl 
knowledge by "training other professionals and team members so they can achieve their ow 
professional accreditation and become replicators of sustainable construction practices." While the 
Petitioner described in detail the nature of the consulting services he can provide to U.S. clients, he 
did not further explain or document how he proposes to assist with shaping and developing 
government strategies regarding sustainable construction in the United States or the specific 
government agencies with which he would collaborate. Similarly, while it is evident that the Petitioner 
may provide job-related training to any employees eventually hired by consulting practice, he did not 
elaborate on the knowledge sharing component of his proposed endeavor or provide an evidentiary 
basis to support that his training-related activities would result in a substantial increase in the number 
ofl !accredited professionals in the United States or would otherwise have broad implications for 
his field. In Dhanasar we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level 
5 
of having national importance because they would not extend beyond his students to impact his field 
more broadly. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner emphasized that he is "well positioned as a trusted 
driver for decision makers to adopt measures as big as the scale allows in each segment: be it 
developers, builders, government bodies, academic institutions, etc." He explained that his work "will 
facilitate the wider adoption of Sustainable Construction techniques in more segments of the market" 
and that he "will continue to support advancements in [the] field by working with industry leaders to 
influence major adoption and replication of these practices and replicating knowledge." While the 
Petitioner claimed an influence on industry leaders and decision-makers that would extend beyond his 
future clients' projects and have broad implications in his field, he provided insufficient explanation 
and evidence to support how his proposed endeavor would provide a platform for this type of sweeping 
influence. 
As noted, on appeal, the Petitioner continues to emphasize his "influence in national U.S. 
organizations" and states there is "no doubt about my position as an agent of change and influence in 
the broader industry." He asserts that he has shown his level of influence through his past projects, 
highlighting a 2013 project called I I which was the first I I certified 
residential building in Latin America. The record contains a letter from E-P-S-, who asserts he hired 
the Petitioner as a consultant on ty projyt. In his letter, E-P-S- explains that he initially encountered 
obstacles in obtaining the desired certification for his project because, at the time, thel I I I rating system was only available outside the United States for projects accepted into an 
international pilot program. He emphasizes that the Petitioner, who holds al I 
certification, was able to get the project accepted into this program after other consultants had failed 
to do so. The Petitioner emphasizes in his appellate brief that there were only a handful of projects 
accepted into this ._____________ ___,r in 2013, but as of 2022, there were more than 
1250 certified projects outside the U.S., representing a "6400% increase in 10 years." 
While the 
record supports the Petitioner's assertion that he facilitated the acceptance ofthd I 
project in thel l it does not support his suggestion that the overall 
increase in! Icertified projects outside the United States is attributable to his consulting 
work on lthis prrject. Further, the record does not show how any influence he may have exercised to 
advance certification of the I 11-roject in 2013 would carry over to his planned 
activities in the current U.S. market, wherel-certified practices have been well-established for 
quite some time. For example, the record contains evidence that both the Government Services 
Administration and U.S. Army adopted I I standards for all buildings and facilities in 2006. 
According to a supporting letter of interest from one of the Petitioner's potential consulting clients in 
the United States, "it is practically required to have on the team professionals proficient in 
[ environmental sustainability]" as of 2022. 
With respect to his planned activities in the United States, the evidence submitted on appeal 
corroborates the Petitioner's previous statement that he has been performing remote consulting work 
for more than a dozen U.S.-based projects that are mainly at early stages in thel Icertification 
process. However, he has not explained how his involvement as a consultant on these projects 
establishes his role as an "agent of change" who will significantly advance design and building 
practices in the overall U.S. construction industry. The record contains little evidence regarding these 
6 
projects other than their names and locations. The Petitioner does not elaborate on his previous 
assertions that his endeavor will allow him to exercise influence over decision-makers in government 
and industry, or his claim that he would be promoting advancements that would have a significant, 
industry-wide impact on adoption of sustainable construction practices. Without such evidence, the 
record does not establish that the proposed endeavor will have broad implications for the industry 
consistent with national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner maintains that his proposed endeavor will have indirect, ripple effects on the 
economy as well as environmental benefits that will enhance societal welfare, emphasizing that such 
impacts would extend well beyond his own consulting practice and its clients. He notes that he 
previously submitted "quantifiable evidence" of the importance of a single project employing 
sustainable construction practices. He refers to a statement he submitted in response to the Director's 
RFE, in which he used the USCIS Texas Service Center facility as a hypothetical example. In that 
example, he explained how the incorporation o~ Ipractices in the design and construction of the 
USCIS facility would have resulted in significant conservation of water and energy resources, 
reduction of waste, improvements in worker health and productivity, and cost savings that ultimately 
could have been passed on to taxpayers. The economic, environmental, and societal benefits of 
employing sustainable construction practices over traditional practices is well-established in the record 
and is not at issue. The question is whether the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor as a consultant 
in the sustainable construction field, would have impacts in these areas that are commensurate with 
national importance. The Petitioner relies on a hypothetical example, but has not, for instance, 
quantified the impact of the U.S.-based projects that he is working on or described the nature of his 
contributions to those projects in support of his claim that a typical consultant in his field, who 
according to the Petitioner would typically work on 20 projects annually, is able to have 
environmental, economic and societal impacts on a scale consistent with national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the facts of his case are comparable to the facts in In re 46885, 2017 
WL 1281865 (AAO Mar. 20, 2017), a national interest waiver case in which a metallurgical engineer 
established eligibility by demonstrating the impact of his work would extend beyond the mine where 
he worked to affect the mining industry, the economy and the environment more broadly. First, we 
note that this decision was not published as precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS officers in 
future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(e). Second, the facts in the cited decision are 
distinguishable from those before us in this case. In the cited case, the petitioner provided 
documentation establishing that the mine where he worked operated on such a scale that his work 
affected the U.S. mining industry as a whole. In re 46885, 2017 WL 1281865, at *3-4. Further, the 
petitioner had provided documentation of novel mining processes he had developed, specific projects 
he proposed to lead to implement those processes, and the potential impact of those projects on the 
broader industry. Id. The record also contained letters from colleagues and professors in the field 
affirming that the petitioner was positioned to significantly influence industry-wide mining practices 
that would exponentially reduce pollution as other companies that adopted his novel methods. 
By contrast, the Petitioner has not explained with specificity what his U.S. projects will entail, 
provided an evidentiary basis for his claimed level of influence among leaders and decision-makers in 
the field, nor identified any specific advancement or innovation that the endeavor will bring to his 
field; rather, he indicates that he will seek to increase the market share of existing sustainable building 
practices. While we do not question that sustainable construction projects, regardless of their size, 
7 
have environmental, economic and even societal benefits, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish that 
the potential positive impacts of his endeavor will be on a scale commensurate with national 
importance. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not met this burden. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he 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 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 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 he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8