Date of Decision: MAR. 29, 2023
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:
Criterion 1: The Petitioner earned a bachelor’s degree in architecture from a university in Colombia, equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s degree in architecture.
Criterion 2: The Petitioner has over five years of experience in her specialty, as attested by employment letters.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver of the job offer requirement would be in the national interest, as required for the NIW.
Criterion 2: The Petitioner did not provide new facts or identify an incorrect application of law or policy to justify reopening the case.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, along with a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. She plans to continue her work as an architect, contributing her skills and expertise to the U.S. architectural industry.
Substantial Merit and National Importance: While the Petitioner’s work in architecture has substantial merit, the evidence provided did not demonstrate that her work has national importance. The documentation did not sufficiently show how her contributions would significantly impact the U.S. architecture industry or serve the national interest.
Supporting Evidence: The evidence included a reliable credential evaluation attesting to the equivalency of her Colombian degree to a U.S. degree, employment letters, and a copy of the USPS tracking label for proof of delivery. However, these documents did not establish the national importance of her specific architectural activities.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor
The Petitioner’s evidence did not adequately demonstrate that her achievements and experience represent a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field of architecture. Additionally, the evidence provided did not establish the broader impact required for national importance.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not specified
Business Plan: Not specified
Advisory Letter: Not specified
Any other supporting documentation: The Petitioner submitted proof of delivery for her brief and related evidence but did not provide sufficient new facts or demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the requirements for reopening her case, as she failed to demonstrate new facts or identify an incorrect application of law or policy. The evidence provided did not sufficiently establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance or that she meets the criteria for a national interest waiver. Consequently, the Petitioner did not qualify for the national interest waiver, and further analysis of the remaining criteria was unnecessary.
