EB-2 NIW USCIS Appeal Review – Business Administrator and Financial Analyst – Business Administration and Financial Analysis OCT122023_03B5203

Date of Decision: October 12, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Business Administration and Financial Analysis

Petitioner Information

Profession: Business Administrator and Financial Analyst
Field: Business Administration and Financial Analysis
Nationality: Not specified

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded for further consideration

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Criteria Met:

  • Advanced Degree: The petitioner holds a U.S. master’s degree in business administration, which qualifies him as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

Criteria Not Met:

  • Substantial Merit and National Importance: The Director concluded that the petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor as a financial analyst had substantial merit and national importance. The Director described the petitioner’s proposed endeavor as vague and not specific enough to demonstrate its potential impact on the U.S. economy or society. However, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director did not adequately address the evidence provided by the petitioner, which included a professional plan, letters of recommendation, an expert opinion letter, and articles on finance and investment. The case was remanded for further analysis of whether the petitioner’s proposed endeavor meets the substantial merit and national importance criteria under the Dhanasar framework.

Key Points from the Decision

Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to work in the United States as a financial analyst, leveraging his experience and expertise to contribute to the financial services sector. He provided a professional plan outlining his goals and the potential impact of his work on the U.S. economy. However, the Director found the petitioner’s description of his proposed endeavor too general and insufficient to establish national importance. The AAO determined that the Director did not fully consider the evidence and did not provide a detailed analysis of the petitioner’s claims.

Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The AAO noted that the Director’s decision lacked a comprehensive discussion of the evidence submitted, particularly the professional plan and expert opinion letter. The AAO emphasized that the Director should analyze whether the petitioner’s proposed endeavor has significant potential to impact the broader field of finance or the U.S. economy. The case was remanded for a more thorough evaluation of the petitioner’s proposed work.

On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The Director concluded that the petitioner did not satisfy the third prong of the Dhanasar framework, but this conclusion was based on the failure to meet the first two prongs. The AAO found that the Director did not adequately evaluate the petitioner’s arguments or evidence under the third prong. The case was remanded for further analysis, including a reassessment of whether waiving the labor certification requirement would benefit the United States.

Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided a professional plan, letters of recommendation, an expert opinion letter, and articles on finance and investment. The AAO determined that these documents were not sufficiently considered in the Director’s decision and that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to contest the findings.

Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Director’s decision did not identify any inconsistencies in the petitioner’s proposed endeavor but focused on the generality and lack of specificity in the petitioner’s description of his work. The AAO’s remand directs the Director to perform a more detailed analysis of the petitioner’s evidence.

Supporting Documentation

Letters of Intent:
Not provided.

Business Plan:
Included but requires further analysis regarding its impact on national importance.

Advisory Letter:
Included but not fully considered in the initial decision.

Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included professional plan and expert opinion letter, which will be reassessed on remand.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The case was remanded for further consideration.
Reasoning: The Director’s decision was withdrawn due to insufficient analysis and discussion of the evidence. The case will be reconsidered to determine whether the petitioner meets each prong under the Dhanasar framework.

Download the Full Petition Review Here


Emmanuel Uwakwe
Emmanuel Uwakwe

I studied Electrical and Electronics Engineering and have a huge passion for tech related stuff :)

Articles: 1543

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *