Date of Decision: June 7, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Financial Advisory
Petitioner Information
Profession: Financial Advisor
Field: Business Administration and Financial Management
Nationality: Brazilian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None: The petitioner did not meet the criteria for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional or for a national interest waiver.
Criteria Not Met:
Advanced Degree Requirements: The petitioner’s qualifications were found to be equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s degree, which did not meet the advanced degree requirement for EB-2 classification.
National Importance: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his proposed business endeavors had national importance.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to open a financial and business management consultancy in the U.S., aiming to serve small businesses and hospitals with financial management and cost reduction strategies, particularly through the implementation of the Patient Blood Management (PBM) program.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the petitioner outlined a business plan that involved hiring U.S. workers and contributing to U.S.-Brazil trade, the USCIS found that the plan did not sufficiently demonstrate how these activities would have a substantial impact on a national scale or lead to significant economic benefits.
Supporting Evidence:
Educational Credentials: Provided documents equating the petitioner’s education in Brazil to a U.S. bachelor’s degree.
Professional Experience: Detailed past consultancy roles in Brazil but did not convincingly link these to a potential significant impact on the U.S. economy.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The appeal did not adequately address the initial concerns regarding the scope and impact of the proposed endeavor. The petitioner’s plan to influence the healthcare and financial sectors was seen as overly ambitious without sufficient evidence to support the feasibility and national importance of the impact.
Supporting Documentation
Business Plan:
Outlined potential activities and goals but lacked specific, measurable impacts on national interests or substantial evidence of expected success.
Letters of Intent:
Not specifically mentioned, suggesting a lack of concrete support from potential clients or partners in the U.S.
Advisory Letters:
General endorsements of the petitioner’s capabilities were provided but did not substantiate claims of national importance or substantial merit regarding the proposed endeavors.
Conclusion
The final decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the petitioner’s failure to demonstrate that his proposed business activities would meet the high standards set for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. The lack of clear, substantial impact on national interests, alongside insufficient evidence of advanced professional qualifications, led to the dismissal of his petition.
