Date of Decision: April 3, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Marketing Research Analysis
Petitioner Information
Profession: Marketing Research Analyst
Field: Marketing Research Analysis
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None specified in the document.
Criteria Not Met:
Ability to Pay Proffered Wage: The Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the required ability to pay the proffered wage for the Beneficiary. This criterion was not met under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2).
Motion Requirements: The Petitioner did not satisfy the motion to reconsider requirements as it did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. This criterion was not met under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3).
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner sought to employ the Beneficiary as a marketing research analyst for their newspaper publishing business.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The document does not detail specific findings regarding the substantial merit and national importance of the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The document does not provide a summary of findings regarding this criterion.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner did not submit additional evidence or a brief within the required timeframe. The evidence provided did not satisfy the requirements for reopening or reconsidering the motion.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Director found inconsistencies in the Petitioner’s ability to pay the proffered wage, which led to the denial of the petition.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not specified.
Business Plan:
Not specified.
Advisory Letter:
Not specified.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Not specified.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were both denied.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that it met the requirements for reopening or reconsidering the case. The motion to reopen did not present new facts supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. The motion to reconsider did not state the reasons for reconsideration supported by pertinent precedent decisions or legal authority. Consequently, the previous decision to deny the petition was upheld.
Next Steps: The Petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence or explore other immigration options that may better fit their qualifications.
