Date of Decision: August 11, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Architecture
Petitioner Information
Profession: Architect
Field: Architecture
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Advanced Degree Qualification: The Director concluded that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criteria Not Met:
- National Importance: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that waiving the job offer requirement would be in the national interest.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner, an architect, proposed to continue working in the field of architecture in the United States. He aimed to grow into a Senior Designer role at his current company, contributing to the improvement of American land-building construction techniques. He also planned to establish business activities that would open new opportunities between the U.S. and Brazil and the U.S. and Portugal.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor in architecture has substantial merit. However, the Director concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate its national importance. The evidence provided did not show that his work would significantly impact the broader U.S. economy or the field of architecture at a national level.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The petitioner argued that his work would bring economic growth and attract local professionals to join his projects. However, the Director found insufficient evidence to support these claims. The proposed work did not show substantial potential to employ U.S. workers or provide notable economic benefits that would justify waiving the labor certification process.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted various documents, including academic records, letters of support, and information about the demand for architects and the economic impact of hospitals. However, these documents did not sufficiently demonstrate that his specific endeavor would have a significant national impact.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s statements about the broader impact of his work were not supported by sufficient evidence to demonstrate its national importance. Additionally, there were inconsistencies in how the petitioner described his work and the specific ways it would impact the U.S. economy and healthcare infrastructure.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not provided or summarized in the decision.
Advisory Letter:
Provided but not sufficiently detailed to support the national importance of the petitioner’s work.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The petitioner provided articles and support letters, but these did not adequately demonstrate the national importance of his work.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the criteria for demonstrating the national importance of his proposed endeavor and did not provide sufficient justification for waiving the labor certification process. The proposed work was deemed to have limited impact beyond his direct professional activities.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
