Date of Decision: April 8, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Administrative Management
Petitioner Information
Profession: Administrative Manager
Field: Brick Paving Services
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Not specified
The decision does not explicitly mention any criteria met by the Petitioner.
Criteria Not Met:
Ability to pay the proffered wage
The Director and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) agreed that the Petitioner did not demonstrate its required ability to pay the proffered wage.
Qualifying experience for the offered position
The Petitioner did not sufficiently establish the Beneficiary’s qualifying experience for the offered position and the requested classification.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
Summary of the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor and activities: The Petitioner, a provider of brick paving services, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an administrative manager. The role involves overseeing administrative functions and contributing to the operational efficiency of the business.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
Summary of findings regarding substantial merit and national importance: The decision does not provide specific details on the substantial merit and national importance of the Petitioner’s business activities in the context of the appeal.
Key quotes or references: Not provided.
Supporting Evidence:
Summary of the supporting evidence provided, such as letters of intent, advisory letters, business plans, etc.: The Petitioner reasserted previously stated facts and resubmitted previously provided evidence, which did not constitute new facts.
Key quotes or references: The evidence submitted did not meet the requirements for demonstrating new facts or establishing the ability to pay the wage.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
Summary of any inconsistencies noted in the proposed endeavor: The evidence submitted on motion did not constitute new facts, and the Petitioner reasserted the same facts from its prior motion.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Summary and key points: Not specified in the decision.
Business Plan:
Summary and key points: Not specified in the decision.
Advisory Letter:
Summary and key points: Not specified in the decision.
Any other supporting documentation:
Summary and key points: The Petitioner submitted identical exhibits and arguments as in the previous motions, which were insufficient to meet the requirements for reopening or reconsidering the case.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
Summary of the final determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were both denied.
Reasoning:
Summary of key reasons for the decision: The Petitioner failed to present new facts or demonstrate that the appellate decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The reasserted facts and resubmitted evidence were insufficient to meet the burden of proof required for the immigration benefit sought.
This blog post outlines the detailed proceedings of the USCIS appeal review, summarizing the critical aspects and final determination of the case.
