Date of Decision: February 27, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Entrepreneurship and Consumer Electronics
Petitioner Information
Profession: Entrepreneur/CEO
Field: Consumer Electronics and Digital Imaging Products
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 criteria to establish that the proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance, as required by the Dhanasar framework.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor as the CEO of a consumer electronics company had national importance.
Substantial Merit: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his business would offer substantial economic benefits on a regional or national level.
On Balance: The Petitioner did not establish that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and labor certification.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur and CEO of a consumer electronics company, sought to secure lawful permanent resident status under the EB-2 National Interest Waiver category. The Petitioner argued that his business, which involves selling digital imaging products, cell phones, tablets, and other consumer electronics, would provide substantial economic benefits to the U.S. economy through revenue generation, job creation, and tax contributions.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor was of substantial merit and national importance. The Petitioner’s business metrics, including projected revenue, profit, payroll expenses, and anticipated employment levels, did not establish that his business would have a significant impact on the regional or national economy. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide evidence that his business would have a broader economic impact beyond the specific region where it operates.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The Petitioner did not establish that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements. The Director found that the Petitioner’s business activities did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, and as a result, further discussion of the third prong (balancing factors) was unnecessary.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner provided a business plan, financial projections, and documentation of past business activities. However, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that the business would have substantial economic benefits or that it would be of national importance.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were no significant inconsistencies noted in the proposed endeavor. The primary issue was the lack of sufficient evidence to support the Petitioner’s claims regarding the national importance and substantial merit of his business activities.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
No specific letters of intent were summarized in the decision.
Business Plan:
The Petitioner submitted a business plan that included financial projections and anticipated hiring levels. However, the business plan did not sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner’s business would have a substantial economic impact on a regional or national level.
Advisory Letter:
No specific advisory letters were summarized in the decision.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner provided financial statements, tax returns, and business contracts, but these documents did not provide sufficient evidence to support the national importance of the proposed endeavor.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was denied.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, failing to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance. As a result, the motion to reopen was denied, and the Petitioner was not granted a national interest waiver.
