Date of Decision: February 21, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Business Management
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Manager
Field: Business Management
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None: The Director’s decision did not render a finding as to whether the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional. The Director’s request for evidence (RFE) focused exclusively on whether the Beneficiary was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar’s second prong, and the response was not acknowledged or discussed.
Criteria Not Met:
Substantial Merit: The Director’s decision did not render findings as to whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit.
National Importance: The sole basis for the Director’s denial was that the record did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner, a business manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability. The proposed endeavor involves leading American companies to success in developing new projects or assisting in critical projects that will benefit the U.S. economy.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The endeavor to employ the Petitioner as a business manager was not sufficiently analyzed by the Director. The decision did not address whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit or if the evidence satisfies the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted a business plan, articles, and reports on supply chains and chief executive occupations. However, these documents did not provide detailed evidence of substantial positive economic effects or broader national impact.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
Initially, the Petitioner provided very little detail concerning his proposed endeavor. The response to the RFE included a business plan and various articles, which appeared to change the focus of the Petitioner’s endeavor. The Petitioner did not acknowledge or explain this change, making it unclear whether he intends to work as a business manager, entrepreneur, CEO, supply chain manager, consultant, or some combination of these occupations.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The intent letters from professional acquaintances praised the Petitioner’s abilities but lacked specific details on the substantial positive economic effects.
Business Plan:
The business plan provided in response to the RFE detailed the creation of a new business focused on consulting in supply chain, logistics, financial management, investments, and organizational and turnaround management. However, it did not sufficiently connect to the Petitioner’s specific proposed contributions in the field of business management.
Advisory Letter:
Not applicable.
Any other supporting documentation:
The record included articles, reports, and personal statements but did not connect these to the Petitioner’s specific proposed contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the analysis provided.
Reasoning: The Director’s decision is insufficient for review as it did not establish whether the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or if the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. The decision is remanded for a new determination, including a conclusion regarding the Beneficiary’s eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification and an analysis of the evidence supporting that conclusion.
