Date of Decision: June 20, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Mechanical Engineering and Project Management
Petitioner Information
Profession: Mechanical Engineer
Field: Mechanical Engineering and Project Management
Nationality: Venezuela
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Educational Background: The petitioner holds a foreign equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from an accredited university in Venezuela.
Criteria Not Met:
Post-Baccalaureate Experience: The petitioner failed to demonstrate five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in mechanical engineering. The evidence submitted, including employment letters and a CV, did not clearly establish full-time, progressive experience in the field, with overlapping employment periods and vague descriptions of roles.
National Importance of Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that his proposed endeavor as a project manager in the mechanical engineering field would have a significant impact on a national level. The evidence focused on the impact of his work on individual clients rather than demonstrating broader implications for the mechanical engineering industry or the U.S. economy.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to work as a project manager through his Florida-based company, providing mechanical engineering services to U.S. companies, including planning and executing mechanical, electrical, and industrial projects.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the proposed endeavor has substantial merit in the area of business, the decision emphasized that the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his work would have broader implications beyond his clients. The evidence did not show how his services would impact the mechanical engineering industry or address larger issues like manufacturing and supply chain challenges in the U.S.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted tax returns, client emails, and an expert opinion letter. However, these documents did not adequately support the claim of national importance. The expert opinion letter included speculative projections not directly related to the petitioner’s proposed activities, further weakening the argument for national significance.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s employment history and experience were not clearly documented, with overlapping timelines and vague role descriptions. This raised concerns about the credibility of the claims regarding his qualifications and the national importance of his work.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
The expert opinion letter provided unsupported conclusions about the national importance of the petitioner’s work and included projections that were not aligned with the petitioner’s stated endeavor.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Additional evidence such as tax returns and client emails were submitted, but they focused on the petitioner’s business operations rather than demonstrating a broader national impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his proposed work as a project manager in mechanical engineering would have a significant impact on a national level. Additionally, the petitioner did not meet the criteria for post-baccalaureate experience required for the EB-2 classification, further disqualifying him from the NIW.
