Date of Decision: May 22, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Business Consultancy
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Consultant
Field: Business Consultancy
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit: The petitioner demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has substantial merit.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The petitioner did not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has national importance.
Well-Positioned to Advance: The evidence provided did not establish that the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Balancing Test: It was not established that waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the United States.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to manage a business consultancy in the United States, aiming to assist multinational U.S. companies, particularly those entering the Brazilian market, with financial and business strategy consulting.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
Substantial Merit: The endeavor’s substantial merit was recognized, focusing on the benefits of auditing and accounting in international business.
National Importance: The petitioner failed to show the endeavor’s national importance. The potential impact was limited to the petitioner’s business clients rather than demonstrating a broader significance.
Supporting Evidence:
Initial Evidence: Included a non-binding employment agreement from a company to hire the petitioner as a development assistant for $42,000 per year.
Response to RFE: Provided a letter describing a consulting firm offering financial and business strategy consulting, business plan, support letters, job descriptions from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and various articles about the financial planning industry.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner made significant and material changes to her proposed endeavor in response to the RFE. The initial evidence did not mention the existence of her company, its impact on economically depressed areas, or the creation of jobs.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not specified.
Business Plan: Projected revenues between $434,700 to $1,494,700 per year, with plans to hire 17 workers (11 in Florida and 6 in Georgia) and create 22 indirect jobs. The plan was criticized for not showing significant economic impact in HUBZone areas.
Advisory Letter: Provided but with limited relevance to the national importance claim.
Other Supporting Documentation: Included articles on labor shortages and benefits of immigration, but they did not directly support the petitioner’s specific claims.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar test and failed to demonstrate the national importance of her proposed endeavor. The significant changes made to the petition in response to the RFE further weakened her case.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not establish that her endeavor had a substantial impact beyond her business’s clients or that it would offer significant economic benefits at a national level.
