Date of Decision: September 13, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Business and Transportation
Petitioner Information
Profession: Entrepreneur
Field: Luxury Private Transportation
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 evidentiary criteria.
Criteria Not Met:
Degree or Similar Award from an Institution of Learning: The Petitioner did not provide an official academic record from a recognized institution of learning.
Letters from Employers Showing at Least 10 Years of Full-Time Experience: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation.
Recognition for Achievements and Significant Contributions: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Membership in Professional Associations: The Petitioner’s membership in the International Association of Directional Drilling (IADD) did not establish recognition of exceptional ability.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner aims to establish a luxury private transportation business in the United States. His proposed endeavor involves providing CDC-compliant luxury travel services with a diversified fleet. Initially, the Petitioner indicated his intention to work as an independent business owner in luxury private transportation but later shifted to the field of agriculture, which was deemed a material change and not acceptable for the current petition.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor has potential merit, the evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that the endeavor has national importance. The documentation did not adequately show the broader impact of the Petitioner’s work on the U.S. economy or public welfare.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted a “Bakalavr Diplomi” in zoology, letters from former employers, and various industry reports. However, the evidence was inconsistent and did not meet the requirements for establishing exceptional ability. The diploma was issued a year before such degrees were awarded in Uzbekistan, and the letters from employers did not provide specific details regarding full-time experience.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were inconsistencies in the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor. Initially, he sought to establish a luxury transportation business, but later claimed an intention to work in agriculture. This change could not retroactively establish eligibility, and the evidence did not support his qualifications for either field.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not specified.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Advisory letters described the Petitioner’s expertise but did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner provided additional documentation, including employment letters and academic evaluations, but these did not resolve the inconsistencies in his proposed endeavor or establish the required level of national importance.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that he meets the regulatory requirements for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate the required qualifying experience and the job’s need for an advanced degree professional. Consequently, the Petitioner did not qualify for a national interest waiver.
