Date of Decision: May 22, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Creative Editorial Services
Petitioner Information
Profession: Art Director
Field: Creative Editorial Services
Nationality: (not specified)
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
1. Advanced Degree:
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s educational credentials from Spain were equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree.
Criteria Not Met:
1. Educational Requirements:
The Director found that the beneficiary did not have the requisite education and experience to qualify as an advanced degree professional under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner sought to employ the beneficiary as an art director in the United States.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petition was denied because the beneficiary’s educational qualifications did not meet the advanced degree requirements necessary for the position and classification sought.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner did not respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) requesting additional documentation to establish the beneficiary’s qualifications and the petitioner’s ability to pay the proffered wage.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The lack of response to the NOID, including failure to provide requested evidence, precluded further material inquiry into the case.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
No additional letters of intent were provided.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Not applicable.
Any other supporting documentation:
No additional supporting documentation was provided.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed due to the petitioner’s failure to respond to the NOID and the inability to establish the beneficiary’s qualifications and the petitioner’s ability to pay the proffered wage.
Reasoning: The decision was based on the petitioner’s non-compliance with requests for additional evidence, which resulted in the inability to substantiate the beneficiary’s eligibility for the requested classification.
