Date of Decision: September 13, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)
Petitioner Information
Profession: Drill Operator
Field: Horizontal Directional Drilling
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None: The Petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria.
Criteria Not Met:
Degree or Similar Award from an Institution of Learning: The Petitioner did not provide an official academic record from a recognized institution of learning.
Letters from Employers Showing at Least 10 Years of Full-Time Experience: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation.
Recognition for Achievements and Significant Contributions: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Membership in Professional Associations: The Petitioner’s membership in the International Association of Directional Drilling (IADD) did not establish recognition of exceptional ability.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner aims to work as a drill operator in the United States, leveraging his extensive experience in horizontal directional drilling (HDD) to contribute to U.S. infrastructure projects. His proposed endeavor includes operating and managing HDD projects, which are essential for installing underground utilities with minimal surface disruption.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the Petitioner demonstrated substantial merit in his field, the evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has national importance. The Petitioner made general claims about the potential benefits of his work but did not provide specific evidence to support these claims. The documentation did not adequately show that his proposed work would have a significant impact on the U.S. economy or create substantial positive economic effects.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted letters from former employers, training certificates, and industry reports. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s work experience met the required criteria for exceptional ability. The training certificates were issued by a manufacturer of industrial equipment, not an accredited institution of learning, and the letters from employers did not cover the required ten years of full-time experience.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner’s proposed endeavor had inconsistencies, such as the discrepancy between the claimed work experience and the actual documented experience. The Petitioner did not provide clear evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not specified.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Advisory letters described the Petitioner’s expertise but did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner provided additional documentation, including employment letters and academic evaluations, but these did not resolve the inconsistencies in his proposed endeavor or establish the required level of national importance.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that he meets the regulatory requirements for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate the required qualifying experience and the job’s need for an advanced degree professional. Consequently, the Petitioner did not qualify for a national interest waiver.
