Date of Decision: May 12, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Architecture
Petitioner Information
Profession: Architect
Field: Architecture
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- None: The petition did not undergo a full merits determination of the advanced degree issue. The Director proceeded with a Dhanasar analysis without concluding whether the petitioner qualifies for a second preference classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criteria Not Met:
- Eligibility for Advanced Degree Classification: The petitioner’s eligibility for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree was not established prior to the Dhanasar analysis. Specifically, the record did not contain an evaluation from an academic credentials evaluation service to establish whether the petitioner’s foreign degrees are equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s and master’s degree.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue his work as an architect, contributing to the design and development of innovative architectural projects. Specific details of the proposed endeavor were not detailed in the decision.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Director did not make a final determination on the substantial merit and national importance of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor, as the eligibility for advanced degree classification was not established.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The Director’s decision did not address this criterion in detail due to the absence of a determination on the petitioner’s eligibility for the advanced degree classification.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted various documentation in support of his qualifications and proposed endeavor. However, the Director did not evaluate this evidence fully due to the procedural issue of not establishing eligibility for the advanced degree classification first.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Director did not identify any inconsistencies in the proposed endeavor, as the primary issue was the procedural oversight in the initial decision.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not provided
Business Plan: Not provided or summarized in the decision
Advisory Letter: Not provided
Other Supporting Documentation: Included various documents, but not fully evaluated due to the procedural issue.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was remanded.
Reasoning: The Director’s decision was insufficient for review because it did not establish whether the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination of the advanced degree issue and entry of a new decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
