Date of Decision: January 5, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Cybersecurity
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Development Manager
Field: Cybersecurity
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit:
The Petitioner demonstrated that her proposed endeavor in cybersecurity has substantial merit. The business plan and job creation projections were provided as evidence.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance:
The Petitioner failed to sufficiently demonstrate that her specific endeavor within the cybersecurity sales department of an individual company has national importance. The connection between the proposed endeavor and national initiatives was not adequately established.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to undertake a role within the cybersecurity sales department, emphasizing the importance of resisting cyberattacks. Her work involved providing products and services to companies and clients.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner asserted that cybersecurity issues are part of national initiatives, thus claiming national importance for her endeavor. However, she did not provide sufficient evidence to directly connect her role to these national initiatives. The decision emphasized that while cybersecurity is important, the specific endeavor proposed by the Petitioner did not sufficiently extend beyond her employer or its partners and clientele to meet the national importance criterion.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner presented letters of support, advisory opinions, revenue and job creation projections, and an economic impact analysis (EIA). Despite these submissions, the evidence was deemed insufficient to demonstrate the proposed endeavor’s national importance. The EIA, based on figures provided by the Petitioner, lacked independent verification of the projections’ basis or accuracy.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner provided conflicting information regarding job creation implications, stating both that her work “may lead to potential creation of jobs” and that she had “already created approximately 473 new jobs (direct and induced).” This inconsistency and lack of detailed corroborative evidence contributed to the denial of the appeal.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The letters highlighted the Petitioner’s role and contributions within her company and to her clients, emphasizing the importance of her work in cybersecurity.
Business Plan:
The business plan included revenue and job creation projections, which were submitted to an economic analysis consulting organization. However, the lack of independent analysis and corroborative details undermined the plan’s credibility.
Advisory Letter:
The advisory letter supported the Petitioner’s claims about her contributions and the importance of her role but failed to connect these contributions directly to national initiatives or broader economic impacts.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning:
The decision was based on the inability of the Petitioner to demonstrate that her specific proposed endeavor in cybersecurity sales had national importance. The evidence provided did not show sufficient economic impact or job creation attributable to her role, nor did it establish a direct connection to national cybersecurity initiatives.
Next Steps:
For future petitions, the Petitioner should focus on providing clear, detailed, and independently verified evidence of the national importance of her proposed endeavor. This could include demonstrating direct connections to national initiatives, providing detailed methodologies for economic impact analyses, and ensuring consistency in job creation and economic benefit projections.
