Date of Decision: APR. 20, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Financial Analysis and Management
Petitioner Information
Profession: Financial Analyst and Manager
Field: Financial Analysis and Management
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
That the noncitizen’s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance:
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed endeavor, which initially was obtaining a CGMA degree and contributing to the financial sector within one company, had national importance.
That the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor:
The petitioner’s past performance was noted, but the specific prospective endeavor’s details were insufficient to conclude national importance.
Criteria Not Met:
The noncitizen’s proposed endeavor’s specific merit and national importance:
The petitioner’s general assertions and the new set of facts presented in response to the RFE were insufficient and considered material changes.
Broader implications such as significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic effects:
The petitioner did not provide enough specifics about the consulting services’ scope or impact.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner initially proposed to complete a CGMA degree and contribute to the financial sector. Later, the petitioner mentioned plans to establish a consulting firm, which was considered a material change to the initial petition.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s endeavor lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate national importance. The petitioner failed to provide detailed plans on how the proposed consulting firm would significantly impact the U.S. financial market or create job opportunities.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided employment confirmation letters and articles about the shortage of skilled finance professionals in the U.S. However, these did not address the specific endeavor’s broader implications.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s initial and subsequent descriptions of the proposed endeavor were inconsistent, presenting a new set of facts that could not establish eligibility.
Supporting Documentation:
Letters of Intent:
Provided but lacked detailed insight into the proposed endeavor’s broader implications.
Business Plan:
The petitioner suggested a plan to establish a consulting firm, but specifics about operations, employment, and economic impact were insufficient.
Advisory Letter:
Referenced but not detailed enough to support the national importance of the proposed endeavor.
Any other supporting documentation:
Not sufficient to establish the proposed endeavor’s national importance or substantial merit.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed due to failure to meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor had national importance, which is crucial for an NIW.
Reasoning:
The decision was based on the insufficiency of evidence to demonstrate the proposed endeavor’s substantial merit and national importance. The petitioner’s responses to the RFE introduced new facts that were materially different from the initial petition, thus not supporting the initial claims.
