Date of Decision: March 31, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Corporate Law in Oil and Gas Industry
Petitioner Information
Profession: Entrepreneur
Field: Corporate Law in Oil and Gas Industry
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit: The Petitioner’s proposed endeavor in the field of corporate law related to the oil and gas industry has substantial merit.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has national importance.
Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of corporate law related to the oil and gas industry, proposed to work as an independent consultant or as the chief executive officer of a consulting company. The Petitioner emphasized the significance of the oil and gas industry to the U.S. economy, stating that her work would contribute to economic growth and job creation.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the proposed endeavor in corporate law within the oil and gas industry has substantial merit, the evidence did not demonstrate its national importance. The documentation provided focused on the general importance of the oil and gas industry rather than the specific national importance of the Petitioner’s services.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted a business plan, documentation demonstrating company incorporation, and an expert opinion letter. However, the Director noted inconsistencies in the Petitioner’s claims about her proposed endeavor, and the evidence provided was insufficient to establish national importance.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor
The Petitioner initially described her proposed endeavor as seeking employment as an independent consultant. However, in response to a request for evidence, she presented a business plan indicating her intention to work as the chief executive officer of a newly formed consulting company. These conflicting claims created inconsistencies in the record.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
The business plan provided did not establish eligibility because it was presented after the petition filing date and introduced new facts.
Advisory Letter:
The advisory letter provided did not adequately demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor and contained general statements without independent analysis.
Any other supporting documentation:
Additional documents included employment verification letters and gratitude letters from a company in Russia, which were deemed insufficient.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed due to the Petitioner not meeting the criteria for national importance and not being well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor would have significant national or regional implications. The documentation focused more on local and individual benefits rather than a broader national impact.