Date of Decision: December 2, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Business Analysis
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Analyst
Field: Business Analysis with knowledge of Brazilian oil and gas, consumer products, and real estate industries
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- None: The petitioner did not meet the criteria for substantial merit and national importance as per the Dhanasar framework.
Criteria Not Met:
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner failed to establish that his proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance. His general claims about the importance of his work in business analysis and the impact on the U.S. business industry were not sufficiently documented or connected to broader implications within the field.
- Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show he was well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. The documentation submitted did not convincingly demonstrate his capacity to influence or advance the fields of business analysis significantly.
- Beneficial to the United States to Waive the Requirements of the Labor Certification Process: The petitioner failed to show that, on balance, waiving the labor certification requirement would be beneficial to the United States. The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the national interest in his contributions.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to work as a Business Analyst with an in-depth knowledge of the Brazilian oil and gas, consumer products, and real estate industries, aiming to contribute to U.S. societal needs and economic prosperity.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor did not demonstrate substantial merit and national importance. The general and unsupported claims about the ripple effects of his work on the U.S. business industry were insufficient to establish national importance.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The petitioner argued that his work would contribute to enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. companies. However, he did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that his contributions would justify waiving the labor certification process.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, and letters of support. However, these documents did not adequately demonstrate his ability to significantly impact his field. The general claims about the national importance of his work were not well-documented or supported by concrete evidence.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s assertions about the national importance of his proposed endeavor were not fully supported by the evidence provided. The documentation did not clearly show that his work had broader implications or significant potential to employ U.S. workers or contribute to the U.S. economy.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not provided or summarized in the decision.
Advisory Letter:
Not provided or summarized in the decision.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included letters of support, which praised his work but did not adequately demonstrate his significant impact in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the criteria for demonstrating that his proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance or that waiving the labor certification requirement would be beneficial to the United States. The evidence provided was insufficient to support his claims of significant impact and national importance.
