Date of Decision: October 6, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Intellectual Property (IP) Law
Petitioner Information
Profession: Intellectual Property Specialist
Field: Intellectual Property Law
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
The petitioner demonstrated that they hold an advanced degree and have significant experience in the field of intellectual property law.
The petitioner submitted a comprehensive business plan detailing their proposed IP audit and management services.
Criteria Not Met:
The petitioner failed to establish that their proposed endeavor has national importance.
Insufficient evidence was provided to demonstrate the potential broad impact of the proposed IP services on the U.S. economy.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner aims to provide IP audits and IP management analyses in the United States, helping U.S. companies and individuals protect, develop, and monetize their intellectual property. The petitioner plans to set up their own company to offer these services, leveraging their specialized IP knowledge and experience gained abroad.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the petitioner’s endeavor in the field of IP law has substantial merit, the evidence did not demonstrate national importance. The petitioner’s work primarily impacts individual clients or companies rather than having a broader influence on the national economy or other industries.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided a signed statement, a detailed business plan, and descriptions of their proposed IP audit system. However, the evidence lacked specific information to show the proposed endeavor’s national importance.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The business plan indicated that the petitioner plans to set up their company over the next ten years, which contradicts their assertion that the company would be established immediately after petition approval. This inconsistency weakened the credibility of the petitioner’s claims.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not applicable.
Business Plan: A detailed business plan was provided, but it did not include projections for employment or revenue that would demonstrate a substantial positive economic effect.
Advisory Letter: Not applicable.
Any other supporting documentation: General IP material and principles were provided, but they did not specifically relate to the petitioner’s proposed endeavor.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, which requires showing the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The evidence provided did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s work would have a substantial positive economic impact or broader implications beyond individual clients. As the national importance criterion was not satisfied, further analysis under the second and third prongs was deemed unnecessary.
