Date of Decision: January 11, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Engineer
Field: Design for Manufacturing (DFM)
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor of providing expertise and solutions in Design for Manufacturing (DFM) to significantly decrease the total pre-production cycle was recognized for its substantial merit.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The evidence did not substantiate how his past performance extended beyond his employers to impact the engineering field more broadly.
Well-Positioned to Advance Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner did not demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. The provided letters of recommendation did not sufficiently support the claim of five years of progressive experience in the specialty, nor did they establish his expertise and success in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to seek employment as an engineer in the field of Design for Manufacturing (DFM) of products, aiming to provide expertise and solutions to DFM firms to significantly decrease the total pre-production cycle and positively impact the US economy.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the substantial merit of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor was acknowledged, the national importance was not established. The petitioner did not provide detailed information about the scale and number of projects or the estimated impact on job creation and revenue.
Supporting Evidence:
Educational Credentials: The petitioner provided evidence of his foreign Diploma of Licentiate in engineering, which is comparable to a U.S. bachelor’s degree.
Recommendation Letters: Letters provided did not adequately detail the petitioner’s positions and duties or cover a five-year period, thereby failing to establish the necessary progressive experience.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner did not present additional detail concerning his specific proposed endeavor in response to the request for evidence (RFE).
The evidence provided did not substantiate the petitioner’s claim of national importance or his position to advance the proposed endeavor.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Included several recommendation letters, but these did not sufficiently demonstrate the petitioner’s expertise or progressive experience in the field.
Other Supporting Documentation:
Additional documentation was not provided to address the deficiencies identified by the Director.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was dismissed due to the petitioner not demonstrating the national importance of his proposed endeavor or that he is well-positioned to advance it.
Reasoning:
The evidence did not establish a sufficiently detailed proposed endeavor, nor did it establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. As such, further analysis of eligibility under the remaining Dhanasar prongs was deemed unnecessary.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
In Re: 24443524
JAN112023_02B5203
