The Petitioner, an architect and professor, proposed to continue architectural design/planning work and to teach architecture and construction drawing techniques (including BIM methodology) in the United States, asserting broad economic benefits to the housing and construction industries.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner's skills and knowledge in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework... The issue here is whether the specific endeavor... has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

Notable

The AAO explicitly distinguishes between the importance of the petitioner's field/profession and the importance of his specific proposed endeavor, treating his 30 years of experience and expertise as relevant only to prong 2 rather than to national importance under prong 1. The decision expressly notes each reason given is an independent and alternate basis for dismissal.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

• INA 203(b)(2)
• INA 291
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
• The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
• The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
• The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
• The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp