Date of Decision: January 18, 2024
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: Entrepreneurship
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Preponderance of Evidence: The petitioner provided substantial documentation supporting their qualifications.
- Advanced Degree or Exceptional Ability: Demonstrated through extensive business plans and previous entrepreneurial ventures.
Criteria Not Met:
- Valid Signature Requirement: The signature provided was not original, leading to questions regarding the validity of the petition.
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: Lacked sufficient evidence that the endeavor had substantial merit and was of national importance.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner aimed to establish a new tech startup focusing on innovative healthcare solutions, aiming to significantly impact medical technology in the U.S.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The appeal lacked compelling evidence that the proposed endeavor would provide significant benefit to the U.S. beyond the immediate job creation.
Supporting Evidence:
Included comprehensive business plans and letters from potential partners, but failed to convincingly demonstrate national importance or substantial merit as required.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were discrepancies in the petitioner’s claims about the scalability and impact of the business, which were not adequately supported by the evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Included letters from several tech companies expressing interest in collaboration, which were not sufficiently persuasive for the USCIS.
Business Plan:
Detailed the operational strategy and financial forecasts but did not sufficiently align with the national interest requirements.
Advisory Letter:
Advisory letters from industry experts endorsed the petitioner’s professional capability but did not firmly support the national interest claim.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was dismissed based on the lack of a valid original signature and insufficient evidence of the project’s substantial merit and national importance.
Reasoning:
The decision heavily weighed the procedural error regarding the signature and the insufficient demonstration of the endeavor’s impact on U.S. national interests.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
