Date of Decision: November 17, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Human Resources Management
Petitioner Information
Profession: Human Resources Generalist
Field: Human Resources Management
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Academic Achievement: The Petitioner demonstrated that they hold an official academic record showing the completion of a graduate specialization in strategic people management in the field of business administration. This meets the first criterion for exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A).
Criteria Not Met:
- Work Experience: The Petitioner did not meet the requirement of having at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation of a human resources generalist. The letters provided from former employers did not sufficiently document ten years of relevant full-time experience, with one letter being from a former co-worker rather than an employer, and lacking in material evidence to support the claim.
- Professional Licensure: The Petitioner failed to demonstrate licensure or certification related to the profession of human resources management. The professional identity card submitted related to a broad category of administration in tourism, not specific to human resources management.
- Professional Associations: The Petitioner’s membership in the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) was not sufficient to meet the criterion for membership in professional associations. The record did not adequately describe the criteria for membership in these organizations to establish them as professional associations in the context required by the regulations.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner intended to work as a human resources generalist in the United States, emphasizing their qualifications in strategic people management and business administration.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s proposed endeavor was not considered to have substantial merit or national importance. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the Petitioner did not demonstrate exceptional ability or qualify for the EB-2 classification. The failure to meet at least three of the required criteria precluded further consideration of the national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
Final Merits Determination:
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field of human resources management. As a result, the Petitioner did not meet the threshold for exceptional ability.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
This prong was not analyzed because the Petitioner did not satisfy the initial requirements for the EB-2 classification.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Recommendation:
The Petitioner provided letters from colleagues and professional contacts. However, these letters did not meet the criteria for demonstrating the required ten years of full-time experience in human resources management, and one key letter lacked primary evidence to support the employment claims.
Professional Identity Card:
The Petitioner submitted a professional identity card from a regional administrative council in their home country. This card was related to tourism administration rather than human resources management, making it irrelevant to the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor.
Membership in Professional Associations:
The Petitioner provided evidence of membership in SHRM and AHRD. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that these memberships met the required criteria for exceptional ability.
Business Plan and Personal Statement:
The Petitioner included a business plan and personal statement outlining their goals and strategies for working in the United States as a human resources generalist. While these documents provided insight into the Petitioner’s proposed work, they did not address the shortcomings in meeting the criteria for exceptional ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied because the Petitioner did not establish that they qualified for exceptional ability under the EB-2 classification. As a result, the national interest waiver was not considered. The evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
