Date of Decision: January 26, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Digital Learning and Technology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Leader – Digital Learning and Technology
Field: Digital Learning and Technology
Nationality: [Nationality]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None: The decision did not highlight specific criteria met due to the primary issue with the labor certification requirements.
Criteria Not Met:
Advanced Degree Requirement: The labor certification allowed for a combination of a three-year degree and a two-year certificate as equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s degree. This combination did not meet the regulatory requirement for an advanced degree or its equivalent.
Single Degree Requirement: The regulations require a single degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. The combination of educational credentials provided did not satisfy this requirement.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner, a diversified technology company, sought to employ the Beneficiary as a Senior Leader – Digital Learning and Technology. The role involved overseeing digital learning initiatives and managing technology-driven educational programs.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
Summary: The Beneficiary’s role in digital learning and technology was deemed important for the company’s operations. However, the job requirements did not align with the advanced degree and exceptional ability criteria needed for the EB-2 NIW classification.
Key Quotes: The decision stated, “By accepting a combination of educational credentials in lieu of a single bachelor’s degree, the labor certification does not demonstrate that the job requires an advanced degree professional.”
Supporting Evidence:
Summary: The Petitioner provided academic records and expert evaluations to support the Beneficiary’s qualifications. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary met the specific educational requirements for an advanced degree professional.
Key Quotes: The decision noted, “The plain language of the regulation indicates that an advanced degree equivalency requires a single degree, rather than a combination of lesser education credentials.”
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
Summary: The primary inconsistency was the acceptance of a combination of educational credentials to meet the advanced degree requirement, which contradicted the need for a single bachelor’s degree or foreign equivalent followed by five years of progressive experience.
Key Quotes: The decision emphasized that the labor certification allowed for a combination of a three-year bachelor’s degree and a two-year certificate, which did not align with the statutory requirements for an advanced degree professional classification.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not applicable.
Business Plan: Not applicable.
Advisory Letter: Not applicable.
Other Supporting Documentation: The Petitioner provided the Beneficiary’s diplomas, transcripts, and expert evaluations, but these were insufficient to establish the requirement for a single degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s degree.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the labor certification supported the classification of the Beneficiary as an advanced degree professional under section 203(b)(2) of the Act.
The Beneficiary’s combination of educational credentials did not meet the regulatory requirement for a single degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience.
The appeal was dismissed due to the failure to meet the specific educational requirements for the advanced degree professional classification.
