Date of Decision: August 16, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Healthcare Investment Management
Petitioner Information
Profession: Lawyer
Field: Healthcare Investment Management
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
The petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Not applicable, as the main issue was the ability to pay the proffered wage.
Criteria Not Met:
The petitioner did not establish its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onward.
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of its own financial resources, relying instead on the finances of affiliated companies.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to employ the beneficiary as a lawyer within its healthcare investment management business.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
Not directly applicable in this case, as the primary issue was financial capability rather than the national importance of the endeavor.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted bank statements for two checking accounts, claiming that the balances demonstrated its ability to pay the proffered wage. However, bank statements alone were deemed insufficient without documentation of current liabilities.
The petitioner also provided documents related to the financial viability of its network of affiliated companies, but this was not considered adequate as each company is a distinct legal entity.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were numerous inconsistencies regarding the relationships and financial standings of the affiliated companies. For instance, documents contradicted the petitioner’s claims about ownership structures and financial responsibilities within the network.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not specified in the document.
Business Plan:
Not specified in the document.
Advisory Letter:
Not specified in the document.
Any other supporting documentation:
The petitioner submitted documents such as formation certificates, IRS letters, bank statements, and photographs of properties owned by affiliated companies. However, these did not sufficiently demonstrate the petitioner’s own financial capacity.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the regulatory requirement to establish its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary from the priority date onward. The evidence provided was insufficient and contained inconsistencies regarding the financial relationships within the network of affiliated companies. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the petition was denied.
