Date of Decision: April 18, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Invention and Entrepreneurship
Petitioner Information
Profession: Inventor and Entrepreneur
Field: Public Transit Innovation
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- None: The Petitioner did not satisfy any of the exceptional ability criteria as defined under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii).
Criteria Not Met:
- Academic Record: The Petitioner did not provide an official academic record showing a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from an institution of learning related to the area of exceptional ability.
- Experience: The Petitioner did not submit evidence showing at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he is being sought.
- Licensure: The Petitioner did not provide any licenses or certifications related to his proposed occupation.
- Salary: The Petitioner did not submit documentation related to salary or remuneration for his services.
- Professional Associations: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of membership in professional associations.
- Recognition: The Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence demonstrating recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to improve public transit access for individuals with disabilities in the United States using wearable technology. However, the proposal lacked sufficient detailed evidence of the endeavor’s merit and feasibility.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the Petitioner’s endeavor of improving public transit systems was noted, the documentation provided was insufficient to demonstrate substantial merit or national importance. The broad description of the proposed invention and lack of independent verification or detailed functionality descriptions weakened the case.
Supporting Evidence:
- Business Plan: Included a general outline of the Petitioner’s intention to improve public transit access.
- Patent Applications: Provided copies of patent applications filed in Egypt and the United States.
- Awards and Recognitions: Included awards from competitions, but lacked corroborative details to establish the significance of these recognitions within the industry.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The documentation provided did not consistently support the claimed advancements or impact in public transit technology. The Petitioner’s claims were not sufficiently backed by credible, relevant evidence demonstrating the effectiveness and implementation potential of his inventions.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not provided.
Business Plan:
Outlined the intent to improve public transit systems for individuals with disabilities but lacked detailed implementation strategies and evidence of feasibility.
Advisory Letter:
Not provided.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included patent applications and references to participation in competitions, but lacked independent validation and detailed functionality descriptions of the inventions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. Consequently, he did not qualify for a national interest waiver. The lack of supporting evidence and failure to meet the evidentiary criteria were primary reasons for the decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
