Date of Decision: January 16, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer
Field: Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought: The petitioner met this requirement with letters from officials of various companies attesting to the required experience.
Criteria Not Met:
- An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability: The petitioner did not receive a degree despite completing most of the coursework.
- Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability: The petitioner did not provide evidence of remuneration that demonstrates exceptional ability.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner seeks employment as an engineer for his own company, asserting that his work in vapor phase decomposition technology is in the national interest of the United States.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The AAO acknowledged the petitioner’s role in developing specialized equipment but found insufficient evidence to demonstrate recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the field. The petitioner’s work was not considered to have substantial merit and national importance due to lack of specific achievements or contributions recognized by peers or professional entities.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided letters from former co-workers and clients, purchase orders, and patent application documents. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate exceptional ability or recognition of significant contributions.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The AAO noted that the petitioner did not submit evidence that the regulatory criteria do not readily apply to his occupation, and the claimed “comparable evidence” was not accepted.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
- Not provided.
Business Plan:
- Not provided.
Advisory Letter:
- Various letters from former co-workers and clients supporting the petitioner’s expertise and contributions but lacking specific achievements.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
- Purchase orders and patent application documents were provided but were insufficient to demonstrate exceptional ability.
Conclusion
The appeal was denied. The petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate exceptional ability or substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor.
