Date of Decision: March 28, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Engineering Consultation
Petitioner Information
Profession: Applications Engineer
Field: Engineering Consultation
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Degree, Diploma, or Certificate:
The beneficiary holds a relevant bachelor’s degree in engineering.
Criteria Not Met:
Equivalency to U.S. Advanced Degree:
The labor certification required only a bachelor’s degree and one year of experience, which does not meet the definition of an advanced degree under EB-2 classification.
Experience Requirement:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary met the one-year experience requirement as stipulated in the labor certification.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as an applications engineer, a role that involves advanced engineering consultation services and technical support.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s work in engineering consultation has potential merit, but the evidence did not demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role meets the national importance criterion required for the EB-2 classification.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted job advertisements, a company profile, and letters verifying the beneficiary’s qualifications and experience. However, these documents did not align with the labor certification requirements or sufficiently prove the beneficiary’s qualifications.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were inconsistencies regarding the beneficiary’s qualifications and experience. The petitioner’s documentation did not adequately address the discrepancies noted in the labor certification and the actual requirements for the advanced degree professional classification.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letters:
The petitioner provided letters from former employers and a company profile highlighting employees’ experience. However, these did not sufficiently meet the requirements for the EB-2 classification.
Any other supporting documentation:
The petitioner submitted job advertisements to demonstrate industry standards, but these did not support the specific requirements stated in the labor certification.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The motion to reconsider was denied. The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary meets the requirements for an advanced degree professional under the EB-2 classification, nor did the documentation sufficiently demonstrate the beneficiary’s qualifying experience.
Reasoning:
The evidence provided did not adequately prove that the labor certification supports the petition’s requested classification of advanced degree professional. Additionally, the petitioner did not meet the regulatory requirements to establish the beneficiary’s qualifying experience. The documentation provided did not sufficiently address the discrepancies and inconsistencies noted in previous decisions. Consequently, the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements for the EB-2 classification.
