Date of Decision: October 5, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Maintenance, Assembly, and Renovation Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer
Field: Maintenance, Assembly, and Renovation Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
The petitioner demonstrated exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, as required for the EB-2 classification.
The petitioner provided evidence of his qualifications, including a business plan and advisory opinion letters supporting the national interest waiver.
Criteria Not Met:
The petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed activities would impact his field or industry at a level commensurate with national importance.
The petitioner failed to show that he is well-positioned to carry out the proposed endeavor. The business plan and revenue projections were deemed speculative and not substantiated with credible evidence.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner aims to establish a business focused on maintenance, assembly, and renovation engineering, providing services that include industrial automation and environmentally friendly practices for industrial oil disposal.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor was acknowledged for its substantial merit due to its potential benefits in the maintenance engineering field. However, the endeavor was not shown to have national importance as it primarily impacts the petitioner’s company, partnerships, and clients without broader industry or field-wide implications.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted a business plan, letters of intent, and advisory opinions. The business plan projected employment growth and economic impact, but these projections were considered speculative. The advisory opinions emphasized the petitioner’s qualifications rather than the national importance of the proposed endeavor.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner presented conflicting information regarding his professional relationships and business activities, which undermined the credibility of the evidence. The discrepancies between the petitioner’s statements and supporting documents raised doubts about the validity of the proposed endeavor’s impact.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The petitioner provided letters of intent, but they did not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.
Business Plan:
The business plan outlined potential economic and employment impacts but lacked credible evidence to substantiate these projections.
Advisory Letter:
Advisory letters highlighted the petitioner’s qualifications and the general importance of the field but did not directly address the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor.
Any other supporting documentation:
Additional documentation, such as purchase orders and bank statements, related more to the petitioner’s ability to advance the endeavor rather than its national importance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petitioner’s combined motion to reopen and reconsider the previous denial of the national interest waiver was dismissed.
Reasoning: The decision to dismiss was based on the petitioner’s failure to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has national importance and that he is well-positioned to advance it. The inconsistencies in the evidence and the speculative nature of the business plan further undermined the petitioner’s case.
