EB-2 NIW USCIS Appeal Review – Business Development Manager – AUG052022_02B5203

Date of Decision: August 5, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Business Development

Petitioner Information

Profession: Business Development Manager
Field: Business Administration
Nationality:

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Criteria Met:

Educational Requirement:
The Petitioner provided a two-year Executive Master of Business Administration (EMBA) degree from a Chinese university, evaluated as equivalent to a U.S. Master of Business Administration.

Criteria Not Met:

Certified Translations:
The provided translations of foreign language documents did not meet the regulatory requirements due to lack of proper certification.

Consistency in Documentation:
Discrepancies were noted in the educational documentation, including inconsistent dates of attendance and different photographs on certificates.

Key Points from the Decision

Proposed Endeavor:

The Petitioner proposed to employ the Beneficiary as a Business Development Manager, requiring advanced business administration expertise.

Substantial Merit and National Importance:

The substantial merit and national importance of the Beneficiary’s proposed role were not contested; however, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the Beneficiary’s qualifications.

On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:

The decision emphasized that despite the potential benefits of the Beneficiary’s proposed role, the lack of consistent and reliable documentation undermined the case for waiving the labor certification requirements.

Supporting Evidence

Educational Credentials:
The Beneficiary’s credentials included an EMBA from a Chinese university, but the documentation provided had inconsistencies.

Translation Certifications:
Translation certificates submitted on appeal were not considered, as they were not provided during the initial or motion to reopen stages.

Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor

Discrepancies in Educational Documentation:
The appeal highlighted inconsistencies in the dates of attendance and the appearance of the Beneficiary’s educational certificates, raising doubts about their authenticity.

Supporting Documentation

Letters of Intent:

None provided.

Business Plan:

None provided.

Advisory Letter:

None provided.

Any Other Supporting Documentation:

None provided.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to resolve inconsistencies in the Beneficiary’s educational credentials and did not provide properly certified translations of foreign language documents. Consequently, the appeal did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary met the qualifications required for the position.

Download the Full Petition Review Here


Igbo Stanford
Igbo Stanford

AI enthusiast, writer, and web designer.

Articles: 682

Leave a Reply

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