Date of Decision: February 22, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Brand Consultancy and Executive Leadership
Petitioner Information
Profession: Brand Consultant and Chief Executive
Field: Brand Consultancy
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Criterion 1: The Petitioner provided evidence supporting their claim to be eligible as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
- Criterion 2: The Petitioner complied with the Director’s request and supplemented the record with evidence in support of eligibility under the alternate criterion of exceptional ability.
Criteria Not Met:
- Criterion 1: The Director did not provide any analysis or conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification.
- Criterion 2: The Director mischaracterized the criterion under which the Petitioner sought eligibility, which led to an insufficient review.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner is a brand consultant and chief executive seeking classification under the EB-2 NIW category. Their proposed endeavor involves continuing their work in brand consultancy and executive leadership, which they argue holds substantial merit and national importance.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Director’s decision did not address whether the Petitioner’s work in brand consultancy and executive leadership met the criteria for substantial merit and national importance as required by Matter of Dhanasar.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The Director’s decision was insufficient for review because it lacked a thorough analysis of the Petitioner’s eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, which is a prerequisite for the national interest waiver consideration.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted evidence including advanced degree qualifications and supplementary materials to support their eligibility under the criterion of exceptional ability. However, the Director’s decision did not adequately analyze or conclude on this evidence.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The decision did not identify specific inconsistencies in the proposed endeavor but was remanded due to the Director’s procedural and analytical insufficiencies.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
[Summary and key points]
Business Plan:
[Summary and key points]
Advisory Letter:
[Summary and key points]
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was remanded. The decision of the Director was withdrawn due to insufficient analysis and failure to conclude on the Petitioner’s eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification.
Reasoning: The case was remanded for the Director to issue a new decision that includes a proper analysis of the Petitioner’s eligibility for the EB-2 classification, considering both advanced degree and exceptional ability criteria.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
