Date of Decision: April 16, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Metrology Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Metrology Engineer
Field: Semiconductor Manufacturing
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Educational Qualification: The Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses a master’s degree, fulfilling the educational requirement for the position.
Length of Experience: The Beneficiary claimed over 13 years of related full-time experience in semiconductor manufacturing, which meets the length of experience criterion.
Criteria Not Met:
Job Duties and Skills: The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence detailing the Beneficiary’s job duties and skills acquired in previous positions, particularly the specific skills required for the metrology engineer position.
Supporting Documentation: The submitted documentation, including letters from former employers and a job description, did not adequately demonstrate the Beneficiary’s acquisition of the necessary skills by the priority date.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner intended to employ the Beneficiary as a metrology engineer, with duties related to semiconductor manufacturing, including SPC KPIs, recipe creation and lots disposition, defect count analysis, tool data integrity analysis, and new product introduction.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the field of semiconductor manufacturing is crucial, the decision focused on the Beneficiary’s qualifications and the evidence provided to support the specific job requirements. The documentation did not establish that the Beneficiary’s proposed endeavor met the substantial merit and national importance criteria.
Supporting Evidence:
Initial Submission: Included an appointment letter and certificate of service from a previous employer, but these documents did not detail the Beneficiary’s job duties or skills.
RFE Response: Included a letter from a human resources official and a letter from a manager, neither of which adequately described the Beneficiary’s job duties or confirmed his acquisition of the required skills. The Petitioner also submitted a job description and additional industry information, which were not sufficiently linked to the Beneficiary’s past positions.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The primary inconsistency was the lack of detailed evidence linking the Beneficiary’s previous job roles to the specific skills required for the metrology engineer position. The Beneficiary’s claimed work experience lacked corroboration through detailed and reliable employer letters.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Appointment Letter and Certificate of Service: Provided general employment details but did not specify job duties or acquired skills.
Business Plan:
Not applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter:
Letter from Human Resources Official: Confirmed employment dates but lacked detail on job duties due to confidentiality issues.
Letter from Manager: Described job duties and skills but was deemed unreliable due to lack of verification and explanation of personal knowledge.
Any other supporting documentation:
Job Description: Submitted from the previous employer’s website but lacked confirmation that it applied to the Beneficiary’s role and included necessary skills.
Industry Information: Provided context on typical job requirements but did not prove the Beneficiary’s specific qualifications.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to establish the Beneficiary’s eligibility for the EB-2 classification. The primary issue was the lack of sufficient, independent, and objective evidence demonstrating the Beneficiary’s qualifying experience and skills for the metrology engineer position. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence provided and adherence to the regulatory requirements for supporting documentation.