Date of Decision: February 22, 2024
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 with a specialization in construction of metal scaffolding and building support structures
Nationality: Brazilian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
EB-2 Classification Eligibility: Petitioner has an advanced degree and five years of progressive experience.
Criteria Not Met:
National Interest Waiver: The appeal was denied because the petitioner’s proposed endeavor was found not to have national importance, and there was an impermissible material change in the petition during the RFE response.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to enhance the U.S. civil construction sector by training professionals and implementing efficient and sustainable construction processes.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Administrative Appeals Office acknowledged the substantial merit in the petitioner’s endeavor, particularly in relation to infrastructure projects. However, the national importance was not sufficiently demonstrated as the focus remained too narrow on the petitioner’s immediate activities without broader impact.
Supporting Evidence:
Evidence included a business plan, educational records, work experience documentation, and letters from past employers. Notably, the change in business plans during the RFE was a significant point of contention, leading to a denial.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
A major inconsistency cited was the petitioner’s shift from being employed to starting and directing his own company, which was viewed as a material change to the petition.
Supporting Documentation
Business Plan:
Outlined the structure and goals of the petitioner’s newly founded company, intended to provide civil construction services and training in sustainable practices.
Advisory Letter:
Included a letter from an engineering professor who supported the national value of the petitioner’s work but lacked detailed evidential support.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The petitioner did not successfully establish the national importance of his endeavor under the Dhanasar framework, leading to a dismissal of his appeal.
Reasoning:
The appeal failed mainly due to the perceived lack of broad impact of the proposed activities and the significant alteration in the business model post-petition filing.
