Date of Decision: October 12, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Maritime Transportation and Port Operations
Petitioner Information
Profession: Maritime Transportation and Port Operations Specialist
Field: Maritime Transportation and Port Operations
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded for further consideration
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Advanced Degree: The petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, which is required for the EB-2 classification.
Criteria Not Met:
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The Director did not sufficiently analyze whether the petitioner’s proposed endeavor of continuing his activities as a Maritime Transportation and Port Operations Specialist has substantial merit and national importance. The case was remanded for further analysis and a new decision.
- Positioning to Advance the Endeavor: The Director did not fully address whether the petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. This criterion will need to be reevaluated upon remand.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue his work as a Maritime Transportation and Port Operations Specialist, sharing his knowledge and experience gained over 14 years. His endeavor included providing consultation and training to U.S. businesses to ensure profitable commercial relations and foreign trade through efficient, safe, and reliable maritime transport. The petitioner also proposed to assist American companies in building business strategies in multidisciplinary areas such as maritime law, commercial law, international law, economy, and accounting.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Director did not make a clear determination regarding whether the petitioner’s endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) noted that the Director failed to discuss the evidence in the record and did not provide a detailed analysis of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The case was remanded for further consideration of whether the petitioner’s endeavor has significant potential to impact the maritime transportation field or produce substantial positive economic effects, particularly in economically depressed regions.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The Director mentioned the law and considerations relevant to the third prong of the Dhanasar framework but did not sufficiently discuss the evidence or explain the balancing of considerations. This prong will need to be reconsidered on remand, taking into account the petitioner’s arguments and evidence.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided a letter dated December 15, 2022, and a professional plan dated October 2022 in response to a Request for Evidence (RFE). The evidence provided will be reassessed during the remand process.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor was consistent, but the Director’s initial decision lacked sufficient analysis of its national importance and potential economic impact. These issues will be addressed in the remand.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not provided.
Business Plan:
Included but requires further analysis regarding its impact on national importance.
Advisory Letter:
Not included.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included a professional plan and letters of support, which will be reconsidered on remand.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The case was remanded for further consideration.
Reasoning: The Director’s decision was withdrawn due to insufficient analysis and discussion of the evidence. The case will be reconsidered to determine whether the petitioner meets each prong under the Dhanasar framework.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
