Date of Decision: February 14, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Civil Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Civil Engineer
Field: Civil Engineering
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None:
The petitioner did not meet any of the specific criteria required to establish eligibility for the EB-2 classification or to demonstrate exceptional ability.
Criteria Not Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that his proposed endeavor would have national importance. The evidence failed to demonstrate that his work as a civil engineer in the United States would have broader implications within the field or substantial positive effects.
Well-Positioned to Advance the Endeavor:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. His qualifications and work experience were not sufficiently detailed to show that he has a record of success or that his education is related to or would help him advance his proposed endeavor. The documentation provided did not establish that he holds a degree equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree, which is required for eligibility.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to work in the United States as a civil engineer, focusing on developing strategic partnerships, improving operations, and contributing to the U.S. economy by creating jobs and increasing access to affordable civil construction services.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the petitioner claimed his work would positively impact the U.S. economy and create jobs, he did not provide sufficient detail regarding his proposed endeavor to support these claims. The provided evidence, including letters from former colleagues and a professional plan and statement, did not demonstrate that his work would have broader implications or significant positive effects.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided letters from colleagues, industry reports, and a business plan. However, these documents did not provide sufficient details about his specific future activities or demonstrate how his work would have broader implications and substantial positive effects.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner did not provide a clear and detailed description of his specific proposed endeavor. The evidence focused more on his general role in civil engineering rather than detailing his unique contributions and plans.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not provided or applicable in this case.
Business Plan:
The petitioner provided a business plan indicating his company’s goal to create jobs and manage substantial assets. However, the plan was not sufficiently detailed to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
Advisory Letter:
Included letters from former colleagues, but they lacked specific details on the petitioner’s proposed future activities and their national importance.
Any other supporting documentation:
The petitioner provided additional supporting documents, but these did not establish how his work would have substantial merit and national importance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied due to the petitioner not demonstrating that his proposed endeavor would have national importance or that he is well-positioned to advance it.
Reasoning: The evidence did not establish a sufficiently detailed proposed endeavor, nor did it demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Further analysis of eligibility under the remaining Dhanasar prongs was deemed unnecessary.
