Date of Decision: May 11, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Security Consulting
Petitioner Information
Profession: Security Consultant
Field: Security Consulting
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Academic Records: The Petitioner provided evidence of certificates and diplomas related to his field.
Ten Years of Full-Time Experience: The Petitioner documented over ten years of full-time experience in the military police force.
Membership in Professional Associations: The Petitioner provided proof of membership in a professional association for military police and firefighters.
Criteria Not Met:
License to Practice: The Petitioner did not provide evidence of a professional license or certification required for his proposed occupation in the United States.
Salary Demonstrating Exceptional Ability: The Petitioner’s salary, while higher than average for his position in Brazil, did not conclusively demonstrate exceptional ability compared to others in his field.
Recognition for Achievements and Contributions: The Petitioner’s awards and commendations were related to specific job tasks rather than broader contributions to the field of security consulting.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to establish a security consulting business, including the operation of a shooting range and providing security services. The Petitioner’s business plan indicated the creation of a limited liability company in Florida to offer firearm training, self-defense courses, and security services.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Director determined that the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor, while valuable, did not demonstrate national importance. The Petitioner’s business plan focused on localized services rather than broader implications for national security or economic impact. The evidence provided did not sufficiently show how the Petitioner’s work would have significant national implications.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted various documents, including his academic records, certificates, income tax returns, and letters of recommendation from former colleagues and superiors. However, the evidence did not establish a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field of security consulting. The Petitioner’s achievements were recognized within his previous employment but did not demonstrate broader contributions to the field.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner’s response to the request for additional evidence did not adequately address the Director’s concerns. The evidence provided did not demonstrate how the Petitioner’s work would have a broader impact beyond his specific business operations. The Petitioner’s inability to establish recognition for his achievements and significant contributions to the industry further undermined the credibility of his proposed endeavor.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
None specified.
Business Plan:
The business plan outlined the proposed operations of the security consulting business, including financial projections and details of the services to be offered.
Advisory Letter:
Letters of recommendation from former colleagues and superiors attested to the Petitioner’s skills and achievements but did not establish recognition for significant contributions to the broader field.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Additional documentation included income tax returns and commendations received during the Petitioner’s military service.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for classification as an individual of exceptional ability or the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Consequently, the Petitioner did not qualify for a national interest waiver.
