Date of Decision: February 20, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Not Specified
Petitioner Information
Profession: Not Specified
Field: Not Specified
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Criterion 1: The Petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
- Criterion 2: Not specified in the document.
Criteria Not Met:
- Criterion 1: The Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement would be in the national interest.
- Criterion 2: Additional criteria not specified.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to operate a business as described in an undated business plan. However, the business plan presented new facts not described in the previously submitted plan, which could not establish eligibility.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The findings indicated that the Petitioner’s proposal lacked substantial merit and national importance. The decision referenced Matter of Dhanasar and noted the Petitioner’s failure to demonstrate the endeavor’s significance to national interests.
Supporting Evidence:
The supporting evidence included an undated business plan, which was already in the record. The Petitioner’s reassertions and references to non-precedent decisions did not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications and were therefore immaterial.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The undated business plan contained inconsistencies when compared to the previously submitted plan. The record could not support new facts as required under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not applicable.
Business Plan:
The undated business plan did not present new facts, and the previously submitted plan already addressed the business operation. Any new set of facts could not establish eligibility.
Advisory Letter: Not applicable.
Any other supporting documentation: Not applicable.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were both dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner failed to establish a new fact that warranted reopening of the proceeding. Additionally, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
