Date of Decision: APR. 17, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Economics
Petitioner Information
Profession: Professor of Economics
Field: Economic Sciences
Nationality: Argentina
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
The petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as he has earned a doctorate in business and administration, a master’s degree in strategic marketing, and a bachelor’s degree in public accounting.
The petitioner is employed at an Argentine university as a professor of economic sciences.
Criteria Not Met:
The petitioner did not adequately demonstrate the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor or that it would be in the national interest of the United States.
The petitioner did not establish that he was well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor or that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and labor certification.
Key Points from the Decision
The petitioner failed to provide a clear and detailed description of his proposed endeavor in the United States.
The petitioner did not demonstrate that his work would have implications beyond the individual companies or business partners he served.
Proposed Endeavor
The petitioner proposed to work as a “special business consultant” in the United States, building on a marketing study he conducted related to small and medium-sized Latino-owned businesses. He planned to develop “200 companies and entrepreneurs” and “university programs” and assist companies that are “blocked and cannot leave the embryonic stage” using his “techniques” and “restructuring.”
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner did not sufficiently articulate what his proposed endeavor would be in the United States, providing vague and varying statements related to his proposed endeavor.
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his work would have substantial merit or national importance, as his proposed endeavor did not have a clear and broad impact.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided an “investigation report” and a “market research paper,” but these documents did not offer sufficient detail and evidence to support his claims.
The petitioner did not adequately address the Director’s request for evidence, submitting ambiguous assertions instead of detailed descriptions and documentation.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor was not sufficiently defined, and it was unclear what he intended to accomplish in the United States. He provided vague statements about his role and the techniques he would use to assist companies.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The petitioner did not provide detailed information about the letters of intent he referenced.
Business Plan:
The petitioner mentioned a proposed company but did not provide sufficient details about its plans, staffing levels, or business activities.
Advisory Letter:
The petitioner referenced advisory letters but did not offer detailed summaries or key points.
Any other supporting documentation:
The petitioner did not provide additional documentation to clarify his proposed endeavor and its potential impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, as he failed to demonstrate the substantial merit or national importance of his proposed endeavor. Consequently, he did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver.
