Date of Decision: September 11, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Computer Systems Analysis
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Computer Systems Analyst
- Field: Computer Systems Analysis
- Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner, a computer systems analyst, sought classification under the EB-2 category as an individual of exceptional ability and requested a national interest waiver. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements as an individual of exceptional ability and did not merit a national interest waiver. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviewed and dismissed the appeal.
Key Points from the Decision
- Exceptional Ability Criteria: The Director found that the petitioner met only two of the required three evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) for exceptional ability. The petitioner claimed to meet five criteria, but the Director’s thorough analysis determined that only two were sufficiently met. The AAO adopted and affirmed the Director’s decision, agreeing that the petitioner did not establish eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability.
- National Interest Waiver: The petitioner proposed to work as a computer systems analyst providing SAP implementation services through his own consultancy to mid-size businesses in the United States. The Director acknowledged the substantial merit of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor but determined that the petitioner did not meet any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework required for a national interest waiver. The AAO agreed with the Director’s conclusion and found that the petitioner’s work, while beneficial to his clients, did not demonstrate the broader national impact necessary to qualify for a waiver.
Appeal Arguments:
- The petitioner argued on appeal that the Director denied the petition without providing an opportunity to submit additional evidence. However, the AAO noted that the Director issued a Request for Evidence (RFE), to which the petitioner responded, thus refuting this claim.
- The petitioner also claimed that the Director imposed novel evidentiary requirements contrary to USCIS policy. However, the petitioner did not provide specific examples or evidence to support this claim. The AAO found that the Director’s decision was consistent with established guidelines and did not impose any new or inappropriate standards.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner did not establish eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability or demonstrate that his proposed endeavor had the national importance required for a national interest waiver.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
