Date of Decision: January 22, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Architecture and Product Design
Petitioner Information
Profession: Architect
Field: Architecture and Product Design
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Motion to Reconsider Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree: The Petitioner demonstrated that she holds an advanced degree in architecture, qualifying her as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor, designing and marketing a multi-functional bag for various markets, has substantial merit and national importance as required by the Dhanasar framework.
Economic Impact: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that her proposed endeavor would generate significant positive economic effects or employment opportunities on a national scale.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner plans to design, produce, and market a multi-functional bag aimed at retail customers, non-profits, non-governmental organizations, and for humanitarian purposes, such as aiding homeless and refugee populations. She also intends to create a “worker’s cooperative” enlisting homeless individuals who wish to work on this endeavor.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the Petitioner’s proposed product has potential benefits, the documentation provided did not establish that the impact of the endeavor is consistent with the level of national importance required. The Petitioner argued that her product would revolutionize emergency preparedness and provide substantial economic benefits, but the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate how this would be achieved on a national scale.
Supporting Evidence:
Initial Submission: Included the Form I-140 petition, educational credentials, and a concept paper detailing the proposed multi-functional bag.
Further Submission on Appeal and Motion to Reconsider: Provided additional statements and projections about the impact and benefits of the proposed product, along with letters of support.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The primary inconsistency was the lack of detailed evidence supporting the national importance of the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor. The record did not include sufficient information on the number of individuals the product would impact or detailed plans for wide distribution and implementation. Additionally, the projected economic benefits were not substantiated with detailed financial forecasts or evidence of significant job creation.
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:
Concept Paper: Provided a vision for the multi-functional bag but lacked detailed plans for development and distribution.
Financial Projections: Included projections for job creation and economic impact but did not provide sufficient evidence to support these claims.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider was denied.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to establish eligibility for the national interest waiver. The proposed endeavor, while having potential local benefits, did not demonstrate the level of national importance required under the Dhanasar framework. The evidence provided was insufficient to show substantial positive economic effects or broader national implications. Consequently, the initial decision to deny the petition was upheld, and the motion to reconsider was denied. The Petitioner must provide stronger evidence of national importance and economic impact in any future filings to establish eligibility.
