Date of Decision: June 25, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Operations Management
Petitioner Information
Profession: Operations Manager
Field: Home Healthcare Services
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Established New Relationships: The Petitioner claimed to have formed new relationships with hospitals, which was intended to demonstrate the company’s ability to pay the proffered wage.
Financial Solvency and Payment History: The Petitioner asserted that over 20 years, it remained financially solvent, did not seek bankruptcy protection, and timely paid all credit card debts and vendor invoices.
Criteria Not Met:
Detailed Documentation: The Petitioner failed to provide detailed documentation of the new relationships with hospitals.
Ability to Pay: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the petition’s priority date onward.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner sought to employ the Beneficiary as an operations manager for their home healthcare services. However, the company struggled to demonstrate a consistent ability to pay the proffered wage.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner attempted to argue that new relationships with hospitals and a history of financial solvency should be considered in determining their ability to pay. However, these points were not sufficiently supported by evidence.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner provided a statement from its executive vice president regarding new relationships with hospitals and its financial history.
No documentary evidence supported the claims about new relationships or financial achievements.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The statement from the executive vice president lacked details on the nature of the relationships with hospitals and how these would impact the Petitioner’s ability to pay.
The Petitioner’s failure to provide detailed financial documentation undermined its claims of financial stability and ability to pay.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
None provided.
Business Plan:
None provided.
Advisory Letter:
None provided.
Any other supporting documentation:
None provided.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning:
The Petitioner’s motions did not provide new facts or arguments that sufficiently demonstrated the company’s ability to pay the proffered wage from the petition’s priority date onward. The Petitioner did not meet the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. The lack of detailed documentation and inability to demonstrate consistent financial capability led to the denial of both the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider.
