Date of Decision: April 27, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Entrepreneurship
Petitioner Information
Profession: Entrepreneur
Field: Solar and Renewable Energy
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None explicitly stated.
Criteria Not Met:
The Petitioner did not provide letters from prior employers attesting to at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation.
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that a license to sell home improvement services relates to his stated profession.
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of receiving a salary or other remuneration for services that demonstrates exceptional ability.
The Petitioner did not establish membership in a professional association.
The Petitioner did not provide evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner sought classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability in the field of solar and renewable energy, aiming to contribute to projects related to solar power and renewable energy solutions.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The findings focused on the Petitioner’s qualifications and ability to meet the evidentiary criteria for exceptional ability rather than the substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process
The Director and AAO concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the necessary evidentiary criteria to support the qualifications for exceptional ability, leading to the decision to deny the appeal and subsequent motions.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner provided additional documentation, including letters from current and former employers, tax returns, a procurement notice, and an accountant’s report.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The primary inconsistency was the Petitioner’s employment history and qualifications for the position, with discrepancies in the provided letters and documents.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not applicable in this case.
Business Plan: Not applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter: Not applicable in this case.
Any Other Supporting Documentation: Not applicable in this case.
Conclusion
The motion to reconsider and the motion to reopen were denied. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to overcome the grounds underlying the previous decision and did not establish eligibility for the benefit sought.
