Date of Decision: April 19, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Application Development
Petitioner Information
Profession: Application Development Senior Specialist
Field: Insurance and Financial Services
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
The Petitioner submitted letters regarding the Beneficiary’s claimed experience, as well as payroll documents from the relevant periods documenting the companies’ employment of the Beneficiary.
Criteria Not Met:
The Director questioned the authenticity of the first employer’s letter and found that the letter from the Beneficiary’s purported former supervisor at the second employer did not comply with regulations because it was not on the employer’s stationery.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner sought to employ the Beneficiary as an application development senior specialist, responsible for developing applications within the insurance and financial services sector.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The findings focused on the Beneficiary’s qualifications and the authenticity of the supporting documents rather than the substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process
The Director’s decision was based on the lack of original letters from the Beneficiary’s claimed, former employers. However, regulations did not require the submission of original letters. The Director did not request the original letters in the RFE, thus the denial was not justified.
Supporting Evidence:
Employment Verification Letters: Submitted by the Petitioner from both former employers, but their authenticity was questioned by the Director.
Payroll Documents: Provided by the Petitioner to support the employment claims of the Beneficiary.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were discrepancies in the Beneficiary’s job titles and duties as stated in the labor certification and the employment verification letters. The Beneficiary’s job duties as a programmer analyst were not described, and the transition from programmer analyst to associate-projects was not clearly documented.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not applicable in this case.
Business Plan: Not applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter: Not applicable in this case.
Any Other Supporting Documentation: Not applicable in this case.
Conclusion
The appeal was remanded. The Director’s decision to deny the petition was based on a lack of evidence that was neither required by regulation nor requested. The Petitioner needs to provide additional evidence of the Beneficiary’s qualifications for the offered position.
