Date of Decision: March 23, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Chemical Products Manufacturing
Petitioner Information
Profession: Manager of Global Applications Development
Field: Chemical Products Manufacturing
Nationality: [Nationality not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Possession of a bachelor’s degree in electrical and electronics engineering from a foreign institution, equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree.
Over 5 years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience claimed in the field of expertise.
Criteria Not Met:
Insufficient evidence of the required 72 months of progressive work experience as stipulated by the labor certification.
Lack of verifiable employment documentation for periods claimed due to companies no longer being active or supervisors unavailable.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed employing the beneficiary as a manager of global applications development to leverage his expertise in Oracle applications and other related technologies.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The proposed endeavor was found to have substantial merit due to its relevance in the field of chemical products manufacturing. However, the evidence provided was insufficient to conclusively establish national importance.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted a series of letters from individuals who claimed to have worked with the beneficiary in the listed positions. The letters aimed to substantiate the beneficiary’s prior work experience but lacked specific details and consistency.
Key quotes or references included testimonials from colleagues, which were found lacking in sufficient corroboration and details regarding the beneficiary’s employment.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were discrepancies in the job duties described in the labor certification and the letters from alleged former colleagues. Additionally, conflicting evidence about the beneficiary’s employment history and job responsibilities created doubt about the claimed work experience.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Provided but found inconsistent and lacking necessary detail to substantiate the claimed work experience.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Included letters from colleagues but lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and insufficient detail.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Employment agreements were submitted but did not align with the claimed work experience timeline and job responsibilities.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary had the required 72 months of progressive work experience as per the labor certification requirements. Inconsistencies in the supporting documentation and lack of verifiable evidence contributed to the dismissal of the appeal.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
In Re: 135942
Document Name: MAR232017_02B5203
