Date of Decision: March 6, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Information Technology (IT)
Petitioner Information
Profession: Application Manager
Field: Information Technology (IT)
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Professional qualifications and the importance of the IT field. The petitioner highlighted his professional qualifications and presented research on the cost of data breaches and improvements in password management algorithms for enhanced security.
Criterion 2: Additional letters of recommendation detailing the petitioner’s personal and professional qualifications, past project achievements, academic work, and the overall importance of the IT field.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Demonstrating the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The petitioner did not address the shortcomings identified in the prior decision regarding the national importance of his proposed work in the IT field.
Criterion 2: Providing sufficient detail about why the proposed endeavor is nationally important, as the additional letters of recommendation did not offer enough detail on this aspect.
Key Points from the Decision
The petitioner reemphasized his qualifications and the importance of the IT field but did not sufficiently address the shortcomings identified in the previous decision regarding the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The additional evidence provided did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen as it did not present new facts that would change the outcome of the case.
Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner proposed to work in the field of information technology, focusing on enhancing security through improved password management algorithms and addressing the cost implications of data breaches. However, the specifics of how this work has national importance were not sufficiently detailed.
Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner provided research statistics on the cost of data breaches and documentation on improving password management algorithms. While these documents demonstrated the applicability and importance of the IT field, they were not enough to establish the national importance of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted research statistics, documents on password management improvements, and additional letters of recommendation. These documents discussed the petitioner’s qualifications, past project achievements, and the general importance of the IT field but did not adequately demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner did not sufficiently address the identified shortcomings regarding the national importance of his proposed work in the IT field.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: (if applicable)
The petitioner provided additional letters of recommendation, but they did not offer enough detail on the national importance of the proposed endeavor.
Business Plan: (if applicable)
Not provided.
Advisory Letter: (if applicable)
Not provided.
Any other supporting documentation: (if applicable)
The petitioner submitted documents on research statistics and password management improvements, which were not considered new evidence.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning: The evidence provided did not overcome the grounds underlying the prior decision. The additional documentation was not considered new and did not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen.
