Date of Decision: April 13, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Information Technology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Business Systems Analyst
Field: Information Technology Consulting
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Master’s Degree: The beneficiary possesses a master’s degree in computer science from 2008, which satisfies the educational requirement of the offered position.
Criteria Not Met:
Relevant Experience: The beneficiary did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate 12 months of experience in software development or systems design as required by the labor certification.
Substantially Comparable Experience: The petitioner failed to prove that the beneficiary’s experience with the petitioner in a similar role was not substantially comparable to the proffered position.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner sought to employ the beneficiary as a business systems analyst. The role involved analyzing data processing problems, designing and implementing computer systems, and reviewing system capabilities.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The decision highlighted the importance of the beneficiary’s role in the IT consulting field. However, the position did not meet the requirements for an advanced degree professional.
Key Quote: “The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has 12 months of experience in software development or systems design, as required by the labor certification.”
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted employment letters and an affidavit from the beneficiary. However, these documents contained inconsistencies and failed to meet the evidentiary requirements.
Key Quote: “The Beneficiary’s affidavit is not independent, objective evidence. It does not explain why the labor certification and letter incorrectly stated his employment.”
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The main inconsistency noted was the conflicting job titles and duties listed in various documents. The petitioner’s failure to resolve these inconsistencies weakened the case.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not specifically mentioned.
Business Plan: Not applicable.
Advisory Letter: Not applicable.
Other Supporting Documentation:
Employment letters from previous and current employers.
An affidavit from the beneficiary.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, and the initial decision was upheld.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met the minimum experience requirements for the proffered position. Additionally, there were unresolved inconsistencies in the documentation provided. The petitioner also did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate its ability to pay the proffered wage or that it would be the actual employer of the beneficiary. Therefore, the beneficiary did not qualify for the immigration benefit sought.
