Date of Decision: May 23, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Computer Science, Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Associate Applications Developer
Field: Computer Science, Engineering
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded for further consideration
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Educational Equivalence: The Beneficiary holds a Bachelor of Engineering degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from an Indian institution, which is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s degree in the required fields.
Criteria Not Met:
Advanced Degree Equivalence: The Director initially determined that the Beneficiary did not possess a bachelor’s degree or five years of post-baccalaureate experience as of the petition’s priority date.
Qualifying Experience: The Beneficiary’s experience documentation lacked specific descriptions and consistency.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner, a commercial banking institution, sought to employ the Beneficiary as an associate applications developer. The proposed endeavor involved the development and optimization of software applications to enhance the institution’s operations.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
Merit and Importance: The decision focused on the qualifications and experience of the Beneficiary rather than the substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor.
Key Quotes: “The Beneficiary did not have either a bachelor’s degree or five years of post-baccalaureate experience as of the petition’s priority date.”
Supporting Evidence:
Provisional Degree Certificate: Issued on January 22, 2005, demonstrating completion of all degree requirements.
Formal Diploma: Issued on March 18, 2016, after the petition’s priority date.
Statements of Marks: Provided for only two of the eight semesters in the B.E. program, lacking a complete academic record.
Experience Letters: Lacked specific descriptions of duties and consistency between different companies.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient and consistent documentation to establish the Beneficiary’s qualifying experience and the completion of degree requirements. The letters from various employers lacked specific descriptions of duties, and there were discrepancies between company names.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not specifically mentioned in the decision.
Business Plan:
Not applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter:
Not specifically mentioned in the decision.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Additional evidence required for a complete academic record and consistent verification of work experience.
Conclusion
The appeal was remanded for further consideration. The Petitioner needs to provide additional evidence to resolve inconsistencies in the Beneficiary’s academic record and work experience. The Director will reconsider the petition upon submission of the required documentation.
