Date of Decision: MAR. 2, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Information Technology (IT) Consulting Services
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Java Software Engineer
Field: Information Technology (IT) Consulting Services
Nationality: India
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: The Beneficiary demonstrated possession of a foreign degree equating to a U.S. master’s degree in computer science.
Criterion 2: The initial submission included letters from four of the Beneficiary’s claimed six former employers, demonstrating some relevant experience.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: The Beneficiary’s letters did not conclusively demonstrate the required experience performing “design, development, testing, and implementation in MVC architecture using J2EE, JSP, JDBC, OOA/OOD, Rational Rose, XML, and deploying EJBs on Weblogic/Websphere application server.”
Criterion 2: Discrepancies and lack of corroborative evidence in the letters and other documents cast doubt on the authenticity and accuracy of the claimed experience.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to employ the Beneficiary as a senior Java software engineer, involving overseeing the design, development, testing, and implementation of entire applications using advanced Java technologies.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The proposed endeavor is in the IT consulting services field, which generally holds substantial merit and national importance due to its impact on technological advancement and economic growth.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted letters of experience from previous employers, an affidavit from the Beneficiary, and affidavits from purported former co-workers.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were discrepancies between the job titles, duties, and technologies listed in the letters from former employers and other supporting documents, such as the Beneficiary’s visa application.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: The Beneficiary provided letters from four of the six claimed former employers, but these did not meet the required criteria for qualifying experience.
Business Plan: Not applicable.
Advisory Letter: Not applicable.
Any other supporting documentation: Affidavits from the Beneficiary and purported co-workers, but these were not considered due to the unavailability of the required employer letters.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate the Beneficiary’s qualifying experience for the offered position. Discrepancies in the provided documentation and lack of corroborative evidence led to the affirmation of the revocation of the petition’s approval.
