Date of Decision: October 25, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Organizational Psychology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Organizational Psychologist
Field: Human Resources, Organizational Psychology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Advanced Degree: The petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on her bachelor’s degree in psychology and over five years of progressive experience in human resources and organizational psychology.
Criteria Not Met:
- National Importance: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has national importance. The petitioner proposed to establish a consultancy firm in the U.S. that provides human resources consulting services, particularly focused on organizational psychology. While the petitioner argued that these services would contribute to the U.S. economy by improving business efficiency and organizational structure, the Director and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found insufficient evidence to show that the proposed endeavor would have a significant impact beyond the petitioner’s own firm and its clients. The focus on improving business efficiency, while valuable, was not demonstrated to have broader national implications.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to establish a consultancy firm in the U.S. that offers specialized human resources consulting services, with a focus on organizational psychology. The petitioner also intended to develop an AI system to enhance the efficiency of these services. However, the AAO found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate how these activities would have broader implications beyond her immediate clients to impact the U.S. economy or human resources field on a national scale.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the petitioner’s work in organizational psychology has substantial merit, the decision concluded that it did not meet the threshold for national importance. The AAO noted that the petitioner’s business plan and supporting evidence focused more on the general importance of human resources and business efficiency rather than demonstrating the specific impact of her work on a national scale.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
Given that the petitioner did not meet the national importance criterion, the AAO did not proceed to evaluate whether waiving the labor certification process would benefit the United States.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided a business plan, personal statements, and letters of recommendation from university professors in the human resources field. However, these were insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The evidence focused on the petitioner’s qualifications and the importance of organizational psychology rather than demonstrating the specific impact of her work on a national scale.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were some inconsistencies in the petition, particularly in the lack of clarity regarding the petitioner’s business operations and the evidence of her claimed progressive experience in the field.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not provided.
Business Plan:
Included but did not establish national importance or substantial positive economic effects.
Advisory Letter:
Included but focused primarily on the general significance of organizational psychology rather than the petitioner’s specific contributions.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included business documents and personal statements, which were insufficient to meet the national importance requirement.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the criteria for demonstrating that her proposed work as an organizational psychologist would have a significant national impact. The evidence provided was insufficient to support claims of substantial merit and national importance, and the petitioner did not establish eligibility for the EB-2 classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
