dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Architecture And Urban Planning

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 17, 2024 In Re: 33947279 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an architect and urban planner, 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
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 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. 
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. 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. 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 framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver pet1t1ons. Dhanasar states USCIS may, as 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree.2 We agree that the record supports that determination. 
The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Director determined 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 prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not establish that she is 
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong, or that, on 
balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus 
of a labor certification under Dhanasar's third prong. Upon de nova 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. 3 
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 arange of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
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 specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. 
The Petitioner proposes to establish an architecture, urban planning, and sustainability consulting 
business in thel Iarea of Florida for which she would be its chief executive officer. Her business 
would provide services focused on project management for government and private construction 
projects, in particular renovations of aging public school buildings. For its projects, her business 
intends to collaborate with government entities and private developers to implement "resilient urban 
strategies" which emphasize sustainability, utilize advanced technologies, and create environmentally 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
Circuit Court in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
2 To demonstrate she is an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner submitted her diploma, her academic transcript, an 
academic evaluation, and an employment verification letter. The record demonstrates that she holds the foreign equivalent 
of a U.S. bachelor's degree followed by more than five years of progressive experience in her specialty. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3). 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
conscious spaces. We agree with the Director that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. 
Even though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor is of national importance. The Director found 
that the Petitioner did not demonstrate her proposed endeavor would extend beyond her business and 
clients to have a potential prospective impact on her field more broadly. The Director further 
determined that the Petitioner did not show how her work with her architecture, urban planning, and 
sustainability consulting business has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers 
substantial positive economic effects to the national or regional economy as contemplated by 
Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director made several errors in reviewing the evidence and 
that the evidence demonstrates she meets the requirements under Dhanasar. In particular, the 
Petitioner maintains that her business plan clearly sets out the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor, including its potential significant economic and social impacts on the local community and 
its potential impact on matters which are the subject of national initiatives and described by 
government entities as nationally important. In addition, the Petitioner claims that the Director's 
decision lacked proper analysis in determining her proposed endeavor is not of national importance. 
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). The Director, in evaluating whether the Petitioner had established that she meets the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework, properly analyzed and weighed all the evidence but determined that the 
evidence overall lacked probative value. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Upon de nova 
review, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the evidence submitted establishes her eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence, as discussed below. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently documented the potential prospective impact of her proposed 
endeavor, including the asserted impact on her field and the economic and social benefits to the United 
States and the areas her business intends to serve. The Petitioner's statements and business plan stress 
the importance of the construction industry to the U.S. economy, the expected increase in demand for 
construction-related services, and the Petitioner's business helping to fill a shortage of workers in 
fields related to construction; re-building infrastructure; and science, technology, engineering, and 
math (STEM). To support the Petitioner's statements and business plan, the record includes articles 
and reports related to the architecture field and its expected increase in growth; technology in 
architecture; marketing of architecture firms; benefits of the construction industry to the U.S. 
economy; tourism in the I I Florida area; Florida employment trends; expected growth of the 
construction industry in the United States and a shortage of workers in the construction field; and the 
benefits of immigrants workers and immigrant entrepreneurs. 
We recognize the importance of the architecture and urban planning fields and related careers, and the 
significant contributions from immigrants who have become successful entrepreneurs. However, 
3 
merely working in the architecture and urban planning fields or starting an architecture, urban 
planning, and sustainability consulting services business in a growing community and in a field with 
a shortage of workers is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
The U.S. Department of Labor, through the labor certification process, directly addresses such 
shortages of qualified workers. Moreover, the growth and importance of an industry are not sufficient 
to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework. Instead of focusing on 
the importance of an industry or field, or ashortage of workers in a field, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. 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. Here, the evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to establish an 
architecture, urban planning, and sustainability consulting business and hiring employees in agrowing 
industry with a shortage of workers would impact the fields or the U.S. economy more broadly. 
The Petitioner's business plan claims her business has significant potential to create jobs and have 
other substantial positive economic effects on the local I I Florida economy. Her business 
expects to attract investments from other related industries, such as construction suppliers and 
consultants, and to contribute to community revitalization by working on public infrastructure 
projects, such as parks, community centers, and schools. To support her claims, the business plan 
discusses the business' location inl IFlorida, an area with a demand for infrastructure projects; 
the Petitioner's investment of $50,000 into the business; a market analysis of the architecture industry; 
services to be offered by her business; the expected growth of the construction industry; and the 
business' projected marketing, personnel, and financial forecasts. 
The Petitioner has not provided corroborating independent and objective evidence to support her 
claims that her business' activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to Florida 
communities or the United States. For instance, the business plan projects that in five years the 
business will hire 22 direct employees, generate an additional 43 indirect jobs, and pay over $700,000 
in taxes. However, the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing 
projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized. The Petitioner must support 
her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 
at 376. Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record lacks 
evidence showing that paying over $700,000 in taxes and creating 22 direct jobs and 43 indirect jobs 
over a five-year period rises to the level of national importance. Also, without sufficient documentary 
evidence that her proposed job duties as the owner and chief executive officer of her architecture, 
urban planning, and sustainability consulting business would impact the fields more broadly, rather 
than benefiting her business and her clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance 
of the evidence that her proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
Next, the Petitioner claims that by providing training and internship opportunities to her staff and local 
students, her business would create more qualified workers in her field, promote STEM education, 
and foster innovation in STEM, thereby impacting her field more broadly. However, in Dhanasar, 
4 
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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 
at 893. We noted that "[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. at 889. Likewise, the Petitioner's intent 
to transfer her professional knowledge about architecture, urban planning, and the use of technologies 
in her field to her staff and local students through trainings and internships does not demonstrate an 
impact on the architecture, urban planning, construction, or STEM fields more broadly or rise to the 
level of national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Lastly, the Petitioner argues that her endeavor impacts matters that the government has described as 
having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives. The Petitioner contends that when 
reviewing the evidence, we should consider "the broader impacts and implications of the proposed 
endeavor on national interests, irrespective of direct references in government initiatives." The 
Petitioner's appeal neither specifies which government matters her proposed endeavor would impact 
nor explains how her endeavor has the claimed broader implications impacting government matters. 
Her initial petition claims that her endeavor aligns with the U.S. government initiatives supporting 
infrastructure investment, professionals in STEM fields, and the advancement of critical and emerging 
technologies. She claims that her business' services would contribute to infrastructure development 
in local communities, such as schools, community centers, healthcare facilities, and public parks. In 
addition, her business' use of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies in its 
architectural design process aligns with the U.S. government's efforts to foster technological 
advancements in critical and emerging technologies. She further indicates her promotion of STEM 
education would strengthen the local STEM talent pool which has a shortage of professionals. To 
support her assertions, the Petitioner submitted articles, including a 2015 report on U.S. digital 
technology competitiveness, gender gap in STEM profession, global competitiveness, use of 
technology in the architecture industry, and the benefits of diversity in the workforce. 
While her proposed endeavor may be related to infrastructure development, provide training to STEM 
professionals and students, and utilize technology classified by the government as critical and 
emerging, that alone does not mean her proposed business rises to the level of national importance. 
The proposed endeavor itself must still meet the level of prospective impact set forth in Dhanasar. 
The importance of U.S. government initiatives that support investment in infrastructure, STEM 
professionals, and critical and emerging technologies is not in dispute, but their overall significance 
does not establish the national impmiance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular. The 
articles and reports show the importance of investment in infrastructure, STEM professionals, and 
critical and emerging technologies; however, it does not follow that an architecture, urban planning, 
and sustainability consulting business using digital technologies for its projects and offering training 
for potential STEM professionals is of national importance. As discussed earlier, working in or 
establishing a business in an important field is insufficient on its own to establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake" and consider the endeavor's "potential prospective impact." Id. at 
889. 
Based on the above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has the potential 
to extend beyond her business and her future clients to impact her field, the U.S. economy, social 
5 
welfare, or nationally important matters 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 owner of her proposed architecture, urban planning, and sustainability consulting 
business offers the claimed innovations that contribute to advancements in her industry or otherwise 
has broader implications for her field. The economic and social welfare benefits that the Petitioner 
claims depend on numerous factors, and she did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between 
her architecture, urban planning, and sustainability consulting work and the claimed potential benefits. 
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. This identified basis for dismissal is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and therefore 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) (noting that "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 Petitioner has not established eligibility under the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, she 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. 
6