Date of Decision: February 13, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Finance
Petitioner Information
Profession: Entrepreneur
Field: Finance
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None:
The petitioner did not meet any of the specific criteria required to establish eligibility for the EB-2 classification or to demonstrate exceptional ability.
Criteria Not Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that her proposed endeavor would have national importance. The evidence lacked specificity and consistency, failing to demonstrate that her work as an entrepreneur in the field of finance would have broader implications within the industry or substantial positive effects.
Well-Positioned to Advance the Endeavor:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. Her qualifications and work experience were not sufficiently detailed to show that she has a record of success or that her education is related to or would help her advance her proposed endeavor. The educational credential evaluation did not establish that she holds a degree equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree, which is required for eligibility.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to work in the United States as an entrepreneur in the field of finance. However, she did not provide a non-technical job description of her proposed endeavor or specify what type of business she intends to establish in the United States.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the petitioner claimed her work would increase Brazilian investment in the United States, help close a skilled workforce gap, and reduce the unemployment rate, she did not provide sufficient detail regarding her proposed endeavor to support these claims. The provided evidence, including letters from former colleagues and a professional plan and statement, did not demonstrate that her work would have broader implications or significant positive effects.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided letters from former colleagues and a professional plan and statement. However, these documents did not provide sufficient details about her specific future activities or demonstrate how her work would have broader implications and substantial positive effects.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner did not provide a clear and detailed description of her specific proposed endeavor. The evidence focused more on her general role in finance rather than detailing her unique contributions and plans.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not provided or applicable in this case.
Business Plan:
Not provided or applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter:
Included letters from former colleagues, but they lacked specific details on the petitioner’s proposed future activities and their national importance.
Any other supporting documentation:
The petitioner provided additional supporting documents, but these did not establish how her work would have substantial merit and national importance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied due to the petitioner not demonstrating that her proposed endeavor would have national importance or that she is well-positioned to advance it.
Reasoning: The evidence did not establish a sufficiently detailed proposed endeavor, nor did it demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Further analysis of eligibility under the remaining Dhanasar prongs was deemed unnecessary.
