PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
DismissedNational Interest Waiver · Appeal

Architectural designer

Arts, media & sports · decided 2025-11-20 · SCOPS · NOV202025_02B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 1Merit and national importanceNot met
    Why
    CONCLUSION As the Petitioner has not established the requisite first prong of Dhanasar 's analytical framework, he consequently has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. p. 4
    The Director's denial rested on this
    SCOPS properly concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance ofhis proposed endeavor. p. 2
  • Prong 2Well positioned to advance itNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 3Worth waiving the job offerNot decided
    The Director's denial rested on this
    SCOPS also concluded the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong, but he had not demonstrated that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States, as required under Dhanasar 's third prong. p. 4

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. See in text

What the AAO decided

Main reasons given

  • As the Petitioner has not established the requisite first prong of Dhanasar 's analytical framework, he consequently has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. See in text
  • The Petitioner's statement does not provide additional details of his proposed endeavor, other than stating he remains committed to advancing sustainable design practices and contributing to the architectural community. See in text
  • Here again, he does not provide evidence in support of his assertion that the project will be scaled nationwide. See in text
Show 2 more
  • Further, to the extent the Petitioner presents the impact of this project as an example of the impact of his proposed endeavor, he has not demonstrated the national importance of the project and how the aforementioned benefits of the project would be directly attributable to his particular role as an architectural designer. See in text
  • We acknowledge the Petitioner claimed designs for the fa9ade and bridges, but note, the record does not establish whether his designs were adopted in the final design plan or what his role was or will be for the project. See in text
Read the full decision (4 pages)

Objections found (4)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

  • Prong 1Benefits limited to an employer or its clients
    SCOPS determined the Petitioner's endeavor of working as an architectural designer for a firm in the United States is not nationally important, as its impact would be limited to his employer 2 p. 2
  • Prong 1No broader implications shown
    The decision also explained that the Petitioner's letters ofrecommendation, which discuss his background, qualifications, and publications, did not provide any insight into how his specific proposed endeavor would have broader implications for the field. See in text (p. 3)
  • Prong 1Job creation or economic claims unsupported
    On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor centers on the design of healthcare facilities, and his work through his employer on the project atl lis not a routine architectural assignment but "a $1.68 billion medical facility ... representing one of the most comprehensive expansions of cancer care capacity in the United States" and will impact job creation, benefit the community, fund cancer screenings, create affordable housing, and promote workforce development. See in text (p. 3)
  • Prong 3Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
    SCOPS also concluded the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong, but he had not demonstrated that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States, as required under Dhanasar 's third prong. See in text (p. 4)

Full decision

OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

Highlighted: Outcome (2) AAO finding (5) Tagged objection (3)Matter of X citation
Decision header
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · In Re: 40270402 Date: NOV. 20, 2025 · Appeal of Service Center Operations (SCOPS) Decision · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver)

The Petitioner, an architectural designer, 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 section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 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 pursuant to 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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, petitioners must establish they are advanced degree professionals or individuals of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act.

If petitioners establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 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,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.

Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.

Analysis

The Petitioner is a national oflran and is currently in the United States in H-lB nonimmi rant status. He obtained a master's degree in architectural engineering in 2013 from in Iran. He then obtained a second master's degree in architecture in 2023 from.__________.

D New York. His proposed endeavor is to enhance the architectural sector in the United States by utilizing his vast experience in designing and managing a diverse array of projects, including healthcare facilities.

SCOPS determined the Petitioner established his eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional and we agree. SCOPS further found the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, but did not have national importance to satisfy Dhanasar 's first prong requirements. We also agree.

In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. "We look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and explained that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. at 890. 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.

The Petitioner's submissions in suppmi of his proposed endeavor's national importance include: a personal statement, letters of recommendation, articles, and a proposed plan. The Petitioner's statement does not provide additional details of his proposed endeavor, other than stating he remains committed to advancing sustainable design practices and contributing to the architectural community. According to the Petitioner's brief he lans to work as an architectural desi ner for his employer and will contribute to "the.________________________

~" He included p. 3 and its clients.2 Further, SCOPS found the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor aims to advance STEM technologies or research so that it would impact the field more broadly. The decision also explained that the Petitioner's letters ofrecommendation, which discuss his background, qualifications, and publications, did not provide any insight into how his specific proposed endeavor would have broader implications for the field.No broader implications shown SCOPS also discussed the articles submitted by the Petitioner, explaining they demonstrate the importance ofhis field, not his specific proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor centers on the design of healthcare facilities, and his work through his employer on the project atl lis not a routine architectural assignment but "a $1.68 billion medical facility ... representing one of the most comprehensive expansions of cancer care capacity in the United States" and will impact job creation, benefit the community, fund cancer screenings, create affordable housing, and promote workforce development.Job creation or economic claims unsupported The Petitioner submits documents on appeal relating to the project, such as the approval of the project, a vision project summary, and a press release. However, these documents do not corroborate the Petitioner's statements regarding the potential impact of the project. The Petitioner adds that the project "is designed to serve as a scalable blueprint for oncology infrastructure nationwide." Here again, he does not provide evidence in support of his assertion that the project will be scaled nationwide. Further, to the extent the Petitioner presents the impact of this project as an example of the impact of his proposed endeavor, he has not demonstrated the national importance of the project and how the aforementioned benefits of the project would be directly attributable to his particular role as an architectural designer. We acknowledge the Petitioner claimed designs for the fa9ade and bridges, but note, the record does not establish whether his designs were adopted in the final design plan or what his role was or will be for the project. As described in the recommendation letters, the petitioner works as part of a team, for example, of other designers, senior designers, and partners. Nevertheless, the issue here is not the broader implications of the employer's innovation or the potential use of its designs by the industry, but rather the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed work as an architectural designer.

Moreover, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's benefit to his specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, is not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. At issue is whether the petitioner can demonstrate that his individual endeavor stands to have broader implications, such as for a field, a region, or the public at large. Id. Here, neither his statement, letters, or the remaining record provide any analysis or details supporting how the specific functions and tasks he has or will carry out in his proposed endeavor have broader implications for the field or "significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or "other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90.

The Petitioner also argues the recommendation letters were overlooked by SCOPS. He explains the letters highlight his achievements and specialized knowledge; however, the Petitioner's abilities and skills relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890 (Dhanasar 's second prong "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national.") The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the Beneficiary proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. While the Petitioner submits two additional letters on appeal, they similarly praise his skills and abilities, but do not speak to or corroborate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor.

SCOPS also concluded the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong, but he had not demonstrated that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States, as required under Dhanasar 's third prong.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification As the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar's second and third 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 ofL-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).

Conclusion

As the Petitioner has not established the requisite first prong of Dhanasar 's analytical framework, he consequently has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iv). Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 ofthe Act through the issuance ofa Form I-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.