Date of Decision: October 2, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Information Technology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Infrastructure/Application Support Engineer
Field: Information Technology
Nationality: Indian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Educational Qualification: The beneficiary possesses a bachelor’s degree from India and a master’s degree in Information Technology, which is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s degree according to evaluations by various credential evaluation services.
Criteria Not Met:
Advanced Degree Requirement: The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary’s master’s degree is equivalent to a U.S. advanced degree (master’s or higher) or that the beneficiary has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner aims to employ the beneficiary as an infrastructure/application support engineer in a mobile application and software development business.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The proposed endeavor was not sufficiently demonstrated to have substantial merit and national importance. The evaluation of the credentials and the nature of the role did not align with the advanced degree requirements for the EB-2 NIW category.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided educational credentials, work experience letters, and additional documentation. However, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the provided credentials evaluations undermined the overall credibility of the petition.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The evaluations of the beneficiary’s educational credentials were inconsistent, with one evaluation suggesting equivalency to a U.S. bachelor’s degree and another suggesting a U.S. master’s degree equivalency. This inconsistency led to the conclusion that the beneficiary does not possess the required advanced degree.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not Applicable
Business Plan:
Not Applicable
Advisory Letter:
Not Applicable
Other Supporting Documentation:
The petitioner submitted three evaluations of the beneficiary’s educational credentials, but these evaluations were inconsistent. Two evaluations concluded the beneficiary’s education was equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s degree, while one suggested equivalency to a U.S. master’s degree.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary possessed the required advanced degree or the equivalent combination of education and experience.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to provide consistent and credible evidence to prove that the beneficiary’s master’s degree from India is equivalent to a U.S. advanced degree. Additionally, the beneficiary did not have five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty as required by the terms of the labor certification and for the requested preference classification.
