Date of Decision: September 28, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Industrial Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Industrial Engineer
Field: Industrial Engineering
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree: The Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criteria Not Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has national importance.
Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The Petitioner did not establish that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner, an industrial engineer, initially proposed continuing to work as an industrial engineer for multinational companies in the U.S., providing guidance on cross-border transactions involving projects in Brazil. He aimed to use his expertise in automotive engineering to provide managerial and technical services to U.S. companies. Later, in response to the Director’s request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner altered his proposed endeavor to developing a management consulting service firm to be headquartered in California, with offices in Alabama, Michigan, and Oregon.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the proposed endeavor in industrial engineering has substantial merit, the evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that it has national importance. The initial proposal of working as an industrial engineer for any hiring company did not establish how it would have a broader impact beyond benefiting the Petitioner’s employer and clients. The subsequent proposal of developing a consulting firm presented new facts that did not exist at the time of filing and could not be considered for eligibility. The business plan indicated potential economic benefits but lacked evidence of significant national or global implications.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted various documents, including a business plan, letters from previous and current employers, and a supplemental statement. However, the evidence primarily focused on the Petitioner’s qualifications and experience rather than demonstrating the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The documentation did not establish broader implications beyond the Petitioner’s business and clients, which is necessary to meet the national importance criterion.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Director noted that the Petitioner substantially altered his proposed endeavor in response to the RFE, presenting a new set of facts that did not exist at the time of filing. This alteration affected the evaluation of the proposed endeavor’s national importance. Additionally, the record did not demonstrate how the Petitioner’s initial proposal or the subsequent business plan would have significant positive economic effects at a national level.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
None specified.
Business Plan:
The business plan presented in response to the RFE proposed developing a consulting firm but could not be considered for eligibility as it represented a new set of facts introduced after the initial filing date.
Advisory Letter:
Advisory letters described the Petitioner’s expertise but did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner provided additional documentation, including industry reports and articles, but these did not resolve the inconsistencies in the proposed endeavor or establish the required level of national importance.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, the Petitioner did not qualify for a national interest waiver.
