Date of Decision: February 22, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Marketing and Data Analytics
Petitioner Information
Profession: Marketing and Data Analytics Consultant
Field: Marketing and Data Analytics
Nationality: Brazil
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Qualification for EB-2 Classification: The petitioner claimed to qualify as an advanced degree professional based on education in Brazil, supported by an academic evaluation equating her degree to a U.S. MBA in management.
Positioned to Advance Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor, although this was not explicitly concluded by the Director.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance of Proposed Endeavor: The Director found insufficient evidence that the proposed endeavor has substantial national importance, citing only 30 submitted articles without further analysis.
Balancing Analysis: The Director concluded the record does not demonstrate widespread benefits from the petitioner’s work as a Market Research Analyst but did not sufficiently discuss the evidence or specific claims.
Key Points from the Decision
Director’s Insufficient Findings: The Director did not provide clear findings or sufficient analysis regarding the eligibility requirements for the national interest waiver.
Inadequate Discussion of Evidence: The decision lacked detailed discussion and analysis of the evidence provided by the petitioner.
Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner proposed to continue her work in marketing and data analytics, leveraging her expertise to contribute to the field in ways that benefit the United States.
Substantial Merit and National Importance: The Director did not provide a detailed analysis of how the proposed endeavor meets the substantial merit and national importance criteria.
Supporting Evidence: The petitioner provided an evaluation of her academic credentials, information about her university and programs, and approximately 30 articles to support her claim.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
Lack of Specific Findings: The Director did not clearly identify or describe the petitioner’s proposed endeavor or provide specific findings on its national importance.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not explicitly discussed.
Business Plan: Not explicitly discussed.
Advisory Letter: Not explicitly discussed.
Any other supporting documentation: Not explicitly discussed.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for further review.
Reasoning: The decision lacked sufficient analysis and discussion of evidence, necessitating a remand for a new decision consistent with the provided analysis.
