Date of Decision: September 6, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Military and Security Operations
Petitioner Information
Profession: Military Officer in Special and Tactical Operations
Field: Military and Security Operations
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree: The Petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his proposed endeavor in military and security operations has national importance.
Material Changes Post-Filing: The Petitioner made significant changes to his proposed endeavor after filing, which cannot retroactively establish eligibility.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner initially proposed to provide U.S. companies, agencies, and organizations with expert advice and managerial services in intelligence, tactical security operations, logistics tactics, self-defense, and weapons training. In response to a request for evidence (RFE), he revised his proposal to focus on the creation and operation of his own security consulting firm in Florida.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s proposed endeavor in military and security operations has potential merit. However, the evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that the endeavor has national importance. The initial proposal lacked specificity on how the Petitioner’s work would have a broader impact on the U.S. economy or national security. The revised proposal introduced material changes that could not be retroactively applied to establish eligibility.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted a business plan, statements about his qualifications and proposed activities, and general letters of support. However, these documents did not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The business plan lacked detailed financial projections and evidence of committed investments, and the letters of support did not provide specific information about the broader impact of the Petitioner’s work.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner’s initial proposal was to seek employment with existing U.S. companies, but this shifted to managing his own security consulting firm in response to the RFE. This material change in the proposed endeavor created discrepancies that could not be resolved retroactively. The Petitioner also did not provide clear evidence of how his services would rise to the level of national importance.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not specified.
Business Plan:
The Petitioner provided a business plan for his security consulting firm, but it lacked detailed financial projections and evidence of committed investments.
Advisory Letter:
Advisory letters described the Petitioner’s expertise but did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner provided additional documentation, including academic evaluations and employment letters, but they did not resolve the inconsistencies in his proposed endeavor or establish the required level of national importance.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Additionally, the significant changes to his proposed endeavor after filing could not retroactively establish eligibility. Consequently, the Petitioner did not qualify for a national interest waiver.
