EB-2 NIW USCIS Appeal Review – Management Analyst – JAN272022_02B5203

Date of Decision: JAN. 27, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Management Services

Petitioner Information

Profession: Management Analyst
Field: Management Services
Nationality: Not specified

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Revoked
Appeal Outcome: Rejected

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Criteria Met:

Bona Fides of Job Offer: The petitioner failed to demonstrate the bona fides of the job offer.
Beneficiary’s Qualifications: The beneficiary did not meet the minimum qualifications for the offered position or requested immigrant visa category.

Criteria Not Met:

Company’s Ability to Pay: The petitioner did not prove the company’s ability to pay the position’s proffered wage.
Misrepresentation of Employment Experience: The beneficiary willfully misrepresented his qualifying employment experience on the accompanying certification from the U.S. Department of Labor.

Key Points from the Decision

Proposed Endeavor:

The petitioner proposed employing the beneficiary as a management analyst to provide management services. However, the appeal did not establish the job offer’s legitimacy or the beneficiary’s qualifications.

Substantial Merit and National Importance:

The Director found the proposed endeavor lacked substantial merit and national importance, contributing to the decision to revoke the petition.

On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:

The Director did not find sufficient evidence to support the waiver of the Labor Certification process, citing issues with the bona fides of the job offer and the beneficiary’s qualifications.

Key quotes or references:
“The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate: 1) the bona fides of its job offer; 2) the Beneficiary’s possession of the minimum qualifications for the offered position or requested immigrant visa category; or 3) the company’s ability to pay the position’s proffered wage.”

Supporting Evidence:

The petitioner provided an envelope postmarked May 21, 2018, to contest the timing of the decision service. However, this did not suffice as clear evidence against the presumption of regularity in government proceedings.

Key quotes or references:
“The Petitioner must substantiate counsel’s statement with independent evidence, which may include affidavits and declarations.”

Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:

The Director identified inconsistencies in the proposed endeavor, notably the misrepresentation of employment experience by the beneficiary.

Supporting Documentation

Letters of Intent:

No specific letters of intent were noted as part of the supporting documentation.

Business Plan:

There was no mention of a business plan provided in the supporting evidence.

Advisory Letter:

No advisory letters were included or noted in the review.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The appeal is rejected.
Reasoning: The decision was based on the failure to demonstrate the job offer’s bona fides, the beneficiary’s qualifications, the company’s ability to pay, and the untimely appeal filing. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to counter the Director’s findings and the presumption of regularity.

Download the Full Petition Review Here

Igbo Stanford
Igbo Stanford

AI enthusiast, writer, and web designer.

Articles: 682

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *