Date of Decision: December 1, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Industrial Design
Petitioner Information
Profession: Industrial Designer
Field: Exhibition Booth Design
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved, then Revoked
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The Director initially established the substantial merit of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor. However, further review questioned its broader implications and benefit to the industry or field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate she was well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. The provided documentation lacked specific details about her role in projects and independent verification of her success.
- Beneficial to the United States to Waive the Requirements of the Labor Certification Process: The petitioner failed to show that, on balance, waiving the labor certification requirement would be beneficial to the United States. The evidence did not adequately demonstrate the national interest in her contributions.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner initially described her endeavor as the design, deployment, and strategic utilization of marketing booths for various businesses at trade shows and exhibitions. She later claimed her endeavor focused on revitalizing public marketplaces throughout the United States.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor was initially recognized for its substantial merit. However, it was later determined that her work would primarily benefit her employer and clients, rather than having broader implications for the industry or field.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The petitioner argued that her work in revitalizing public marketplaces would benefit the United States. However, she did not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim, and her proposed endeavor lacked sufficient detail.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted her curriculum vitae, academic credentials, published articles, and letters of support. However, these documents did not adequately demonstrate her ability to significantly impact her field. Additionally, a letter purportedly from a professor was found to be fraudulent.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s assertions about her influence and impact were not fully supported by the evidence provided. The documentation did not clearly show that her work had been widely adopted or recognized in the field of industrial design.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not provided or summarized in the decision.
Advisory Letter:
Provided but was found to be fraudulent and insufficiently detailed to support the claim of national importance.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included letters from colleagues and professionals, which praised her work but did not adequately demonstrate her significant impact in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the criteria for demonstrating that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor or that waiving the labor certification requirement would be beneficial to the United States. The evidence provided was insufficient to support her claims of substantial impact and national importance. Additionally, a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact further supported the decision to dismiss the appeal.
