EB-2 NIW USCIS Appeal Review – Mechanical Engineer – JAN132022_01B5203

Date of Decision: January 13, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Mechanical Engineering

Petitioner Information

Profession: Mechanical Engineer
Field: Mechanical Engineering
Nationality: Not Specified

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Criteria Met:

  • Criterion 1: The petitioner demonstrated expertise in integrated engineering solutions and mathematical optimization across a range of large-scale projects.
  • Criterion 2: Letters from colleagues and business documents highlighted the petitioner’s contributions to creating millions of dollars in economic activity through his employer.

Criteria Not Met:

  • Criterion 1: The petitioner did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to support the claim that his endeavor would have a substantial impact on economic activity.
  • Criterion 2: The proposed endeavor did not demonstrate broader implications for the mechanical engineering field or the oil and gas industry.

Key Points from the Decision

Proposed Endeavor:

The petitioner proposed to continue working in the field of Mechanical Engineering and complex Business Systems Development in the American oil and gas sector, impacting hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity.

Substantial Merit and National Importance:

The petitioner’s work was focused on supporting his company’s projects and clients in the oil and gas industry. While this work is important, it did not meet the threshold for national importance as it was not shown to have broader implications beyond the petitioner’s employer and its clientele.

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

The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s specific endeavors would have substantial positive economic effects for the U.S. economy. The proposed work was found to be beneficial primarily to the petitioner’s employer rather than having a significant impact on the broader national economy.

Supporting Evidence:

The petitioner provided various letters from colleagues and business documents illustrating his contributions to economic activity through his engineering expertise. However, these documents did not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor.

Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:

The petitioner claimed that his work would have a substantial economic impact, but the evidence provided did not adequately support this claim. The proposed endeavor did not show broader implications for the industry or national economy.

Supporting Documentation

Letters of Intent:

Letters praised the petitioner’s expertise and contributions to securing lucrative contracts but did not show broader national impact.

Business Plan:

Documents demonstrated the petitioner’s role in large-scale projects but were insufficient in proving substantial positive economic effects on a national level.

Advisory Letter:

Colleagues highlighted the petitioner’s skills and experience but focused on benefits to his employer rather than broader economic impacts.

Conclusion

The appeal was denied. The petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance, nor did he provide sufficient evidence that waiving the labor certification requirements would benefit the United States.

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 *