Date of Decision: September 19, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: General and Operations Management
Petitioner Information
Profession: General and Operations Manager
Field: General and Operations Management
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.
Five Years of Post-Baccalaureate Experience: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty.
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.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner aims to work as a general and operations manager in the United States, leveraging her extensive experience in general and operations management to contribute to U.S. companies. Her proposed endeavor includes managing and overseeing business operations, strategic planning, and business development.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the Petitioner demonstrated substantial merit in her field, the evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has national importance. The Petitioner made general claims about the potential benefits of her work but did not provide specific evidence to support these claims. The documentation did not adequately show that her proposed work would have a significant impact on the U.S. economy or create substantial positive economic effects.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted a variety of documents, including letters from an outside accountant and a business partner, an education and experience evaluation, her resume, and a copy of her “Labor and Social Security” document from the Ministry of Labor and Employment. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner’s work experience met the required criteria for exceptional ability. The letters from the accountant and business partner did not qualify as letters from current or former employers, and they did not address whether the position was full-time.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner’s proposed endeavor had inconsistencies, such as the discrepancy between the claimed work experience and the actual documented experience. The Petitioner did not provide clear evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
None specified.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Advisory letters described the Petitioner’s expertise but did not establish the national importance of her 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 her proposed endeavor or establish the required level of national importance.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that she 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.
