Date of Decision: December 20, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Financial Analysis
Petitioner Information
Profession: Financial Analyst
Field: Financial Analysis
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Qualification for EB-2 Classification: The petitioner must demonstrate they qualify for the EB-2 classification either as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability.
Criteria Not Met:
- Advanced Degree Equivalence: The petitioner did not sufficiently prove that her foreign degree was equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s degree or higher. Additionally, the petitioner failed to demonstrate five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner did not provide enough evidence to show that her proposed endeavor had a level of national importance.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue her work in financial analysis in the United States. Her objective was to contribute to her field through her professional activities.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor lacked sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that its impact would rise to the level of national importance. Her future work was not shown to extend beyond her employer and clients to have a broader impact on U.S. interests or the financial industry at a national level.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that waiving the labor certification requirement would be beneficial to the United States. There was no demonstrated significant potential for her work to employ U.S. workers or offer substantial positive economic effects for the nation.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted her curriculum vitae, academic credentials, and employment verification letters. However, these documents did not adequately demonstrate her ability to significantly impact her field. The inconsistencies in her employment history and job titles further weakened her case.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s employment history contained discrepancies regarding job titles and dates of employment, which were not resolved with independent, objective evidence. These inconsistencies undermined the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence provided.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not provided or summarized in the decision.
Advisory Letter:
Provided but not sufficiently detailed to support the claim of national importance.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included employment verification letters and work booklets, which contained inconsistencies and lacked detailed job descriptions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was remanded for further proceedings.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the criteria for demonstrating eligibility for EB-2 classification or that her proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance. The evidence provided was insufficient to support her claims of substantial impact and national importance.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
