Date of Decision: June 30, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Software Services
Petitioner Information
Profession: Associate Director-Consulting
Field: Software Services
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering: The petitioner provided evidence of a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering obtained in 2003.
Postgraduate Diploma in Software Enterprise Management: The petitioner provided evidence of a postgraduate diploma in software enterprise management obtained in 2008.
Criteria Not Met:
Advanced Degree Requirement: The evaluations submitted by the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s combined educational credentials are equivalent to a U.S. master’s degree.
Required Master’s Degree: The labor certification required a master’s degree in business administration or a related field, which the petitioner did not adequately prove.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to employ the beneficiary as an associate director-consulting in their software services business.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petition did not sufficiently demonstrate substantial merit and national importance. The evaluations provided did not align with the actual educational requirements set forth in the labor certification.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted two educational evaluations, one from Dr. John Doe and another from XYZ Evaluations, which concluded that the beneficiary’s education is equivalent to a U.S. master’s degree. However, these evaluations were contradicted by additional information sourced from the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) and EDGE database, which stated otherwise.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The primary inconsistency noted was between the educational evaluations provided by the petitioner and the information from AACRAO EDGE, which suggested that the beneficiary’s postgraduate diploma was equivalent to a second bachelor’s degree rather than a master’s degree.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not applicable.
Business Plan: Not applicable.
Advisory Letter: Evaluations by Dr. John Doe and XYZ Evaluations were provided but contained conflicting information when compared with AACRAO EDGE data.
Any Other Supporting Documentation: None provided.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the requirements for an advanced degree position. The evaluations provided by the petitioner were inconsistent with authoritative sources, resulting in the conclusion that the beneficiary did not possess the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master’s degree.
