The Petitioner, an architectural designer and manager, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
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. Because this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest.
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 ofprogressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary 1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. p. 2 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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,2 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.
Analysis
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 3 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
The Petitioner states that she is an architectural designer and manager with more than seven years of experience creating interior design of apartments and managing architecture projects in development companies. She states that she intends to continue her professional development in the United States through real estate development and architectural design and plans to "organize [her] own small development company that will build high-quality and affordable housing."
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of her education and experience, a personal statement describing her qualifications and the field ofarchitecture, documentation ofher design work, and recommendation and support letters. She also submitted industry reports and articles discussing the field of architectural design and management, shortages and demand in the field, and the benefits of immigration on labor shortages in the United States.
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish her eligibility for the national interest waiver. The Director specifically noted that the Petitioner's initial evidence did not include a detailed description of her proposed undertaking or venture. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes a business plan for her company,! lestablished in February 2023. She states that, through her company, she will work to meet housing demand, boost local economies, and enhance living standards. She describes her proposed endeavor as follows:
1. Improving the quality of the product of the residential, multifamily, and mixed-use projects, which contributes to the maximum efficiency of the project and meets future residents' and clients' expectations.
2. Creating added value for real estate projects through design services and 3D visualizations.
3. Creating effective marketing packages for real estate projects by providing design services: 3D visualization ofthe building's exterior and interiors, landscape design, floor layouts, and 3D video projects.
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that the company will employ two part-time employees in its first year. Regarding financial predictions, the Petitioner's business plan predicts total revenue of $150,000 in its first year, with a projected profit of $73,000.
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, he concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor had national importance, that she was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification The Director noted that the articles and industry reports in the record were generic in nature and did not support the Petitioner's claims ofthe national importance ofher proposed endeavor. The Director farther stated that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's business will have a regional or national impact at a level consistent with having national importance, or that the Petitioner's work will have broader implications in her field of endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague The Director also noted that the record did not include plans for financial support for her proposed endeavor, or letters of interest in working with the Petitioner's company to farther her proposed endeavor.No interest from users, customers or investors Additionally, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate national interest factors such as the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit of her prospective contributions to the United States, an urgent national interest in her contributions, the potential creation ofjobs, or that her self-employment does not adversely affect U.S. workers.No urgency shown
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director "failed to give due weight" to the evidence in the record and did not address her "degree and expertise in a STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics] field." In her brief on appeal, the Petitioner references evidence already in the record and states that this evidence demonstrates that she merits a national interest waiver.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first 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. 4 In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we farther 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 4 The Petitioner erroneously states on appeal that the Acting Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor "is not of substantial merit."Job creation or economic claims unsupported However. the Acting Director stated in the decision, "You submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that your proposed endeavor has substantial merit." We agree that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. p. 4 positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890.
When 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 Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the field of architecture generally, rather than her specific proposed endeavor. Although we agree that STEM is important to maintaining the national innovation base contributing to the U.S. economy and may be the subject of national initiatives, we conclude that this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. As noted above, the Director determined the endeavor has substantial merit, and we agree. However, the question we are examining here is national importance.
Although the Petitioner submits articles and industry reports describing the field ofarchitectural design and management, these reports are not specific to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 5 One article, from job search website Indeed, titled "How to Become an Architectural and Engineering Manager: 4 Steps," describes the field generally, including required education and experience, but does not support the Petitioner's claims of the national importance of her proposed endeavor. A printout of a blog directed to building materials companies discusses a shortage of architects and suggests that building materials companies improve their marketing to architectural specialists. Although this blog tends to support that there is a market for the Petitioner's services, it does not support that her proposed endeavor has national importance. An additional article discusses the benefits of increased immigration in addressing labor shortages in the United States but is not specific to the Petitioner's field or her proposed endeavor.Relied on a labor shortage Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the field of architecture generally, rather than her specific proposed endeavor. Even considering the articles, reports, and statistics collectively and in the totality of circumstances, we still conclude that they do not support a finding that her specific proposed endeavor has national importance.
The Petitioner also submits her business plan dated 2023 to support the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 6 As noted, to establish national importance, the Petitioner must demonstrate the proposed endeavor's impact. 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. at 889. Although the Petitioner states that her proposed endeavor will contribute to economic growth, she has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence. The Petitioner does not explain how her company's revenue ($150,00) and job creation (two part-time employees) as stated in the business plan support her claim of "wide-ranging economic, social, and cultural benefits" on a national level. The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting her own company and clients or have broader implications within the field of architectural design and management.Benefits limited to an employer or its clients The record does not establish that her proposed endeavor stands to impact the field as a whole.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's
On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon the evidence she previously submitted and asserts that the Director did not fully consider all of the evidence in the record. We acknowledge the Petitioner's appellate claims that the Director did not duly consider certain pieces of evidence, specifically, her personal statement and business plan.Plan or projections not corroborated We note that the decision discusses each of the claimed pieces of evidence the Petitioner's lists in her brief Nevertheless, we address them again herein. The Petitioner continues to rely upon the asserted merits of the services she will provide, her personal and professional qualities and achievements, and the trends in architecture and design. However, as set forth above, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further discussion of the balancing factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining Dhanasar prongs. 7 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in 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.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.