Date of Decision: February 10, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Healthcare Technology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Quality Assurance Analyst
Field: Healthcare Technology Solutions
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Criterion 1: Master’s degree in Business Administration from India
- Criterion 2: Experience as a Quality Assurance Analyst for a healthcare technology solutions company
Criteria Not Met:
- Criterion 1: Foreign educational equivalent of a U.S. master’s degree
- Criterion 2: Sufficient U.S. credits equivalent to a U.S. master’s degree
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to employ the beneficiary as a Quality Assurance Analyst to enhance healthcare technology solutions in the U.S.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The decision noted the substantial merit of the beneficiary’s work in healthcare technology but questioned the national importance without sufficient evidence of broader impact.
Supporting Evidence:
- Letters of Intent: Provided but insufficient to establish national importance
- Business Plan: Not provided
- Advisory Letter: Questioned due to discrepancies in educational credentials
- Other Supporting Documentation: Included transcripts and degrees, but inconsistencies were noted
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
- Discrepancies in the evaluation of the beneficiary’s educational credentials
- Lack of a clear demonstration of national importance beyond the petitioner’s business
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
- The letters emphasized the beneficiary’s role but did not convincingly demonstrate national importance.
Business Plan:
- Not applicable
Advisory Letter:
- The advisory letter highlighted the beneficiary’s qualifications but had inconsistencies with the educational evaluations.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
- Additional documentation failed to resolve discrepancies about the beneficiary’s educational equivalency.
Conclusion
The appeal was denied. The petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that the beneficiary’s educational credentials were equivalent to a U.S. master’s degree, nor did they sufficiently prove the national importance of the proposed endeavor.
