Date of Decision: October 30, 2023
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: Business Management, Entrepreneurship
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Merit: The petitioner demonstrated substantial merit by submitting evidence related to his education, including a foreign degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s degree in business management. However, this alone was insufficient to establish eligibility for the EB-2 classification.
Criteria Not Met:
- National Importance: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor in entrepreneurship has national importance. The petitioner intended to establish a business in the U.S. offering consultancy and investment management services. However, the Director and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show how this endeavor would have a significant impact on the U.S. economy or business landscape on a national level. The petitioner’s arguments were primarily focused on his qualifications and the potential benefits of his business without establishing how these would translate into a broader national impact.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to establish and manage a business in the U.S. that would provide consultancy and investment management services. The petitioner argued that this business would contribute to the U.S. economy by facilitating investments and creating jobs. However, the AAO found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate how this endeavor would extend beyond benefiting his company and clients to have a broader impact on the U.S. economy or business environment on a national scale.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the petitioner’s proposed endeavor has merit in the field of business management and entrepreneurship, the decision concluded that it did not meet the threshold for national importance. The AAO emphasized that the petitioner needed to demonstrate how his specific work would impact the U.S. economy or business landscape on a national scale, which was not sufficiently established.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
Given that the petitioner did not meet the national importance criterion, the AAO did not proceed to evaluate whether waiving the labor certification process would benefit the United States.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided an academic evaluation, a signed Form ETA 9089, and other supporting documents. However, these were insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The evidence focused on the petitioner’s qualifications and the potential benefits of his business rather than demonstrating the specific impact of his work on a national scale.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were inconsistencies in the petitioner’s statements regarding the scope and impact of his business plan, particularly concerning the lack of required forms in his initial application. These inconsistencies weakened the overall credibility of the petition.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not provided.
Business Plan:
Included but did not establish national importance or substantial positive economic effects.
Advisory Letter:
Included but focused primarily on the general significance of entrepreneurship rather than the petitioner’s specific contributions.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included academic evaluation and a signed Form ETA 9089, which were insufficient to meet the national importance requirement.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the criteria for demonstrating that his proposed work as an entrepreneur would have a significant national impact. The evidence provided was insufficient to support claims of substantial merit and national importance, and the petitioner did not establish eligibility for the EB-2 classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
