Date of Decision: July 31, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Financial Technology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Systems Architect
Field: Financial Technology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Exceptional Ability: The Petitioner provided evidence supporting the Beneficiary’s classification as an individual of exceptional ability, including letters from a company official and counsel.
Job Title Confirmation: The job title for the offered position was confirmed as “Senior Systems Architect,” consistent with the certification from the U.S. Department of Labor.
Criteria Not Met:
Advanced Degree Professional Misclassification: The Director erroneously treated the filing as a petition for an advanced degree professional, ignoring the request for classification based on exceptional ability.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner, a financial technology company, sought to employ the Beneficiary as a senior systems architect. The position involved overseeing the development and implementation of advanced financial technology systems, requiring a high degree of expertise and experience in the field.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The decision implicitly acknowledged the substantial merit and national importance of the senior systems architect role in the financial technology sector, particularly in advancing innovative financial solutions.
Supporting Evidence:
Letters of Support: The Petitioner included letters from a company official and counsel explicitly requesting the Beneficiary’s classification as an individual of exceptional ability.
Job Title Certification: Documentation from the U.S. Department of Labor confirmed the job title and requirements for the senior systems architect position.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The primary inconsistency was the Director’s misclassification of the petition as one for an advanced degree professional, overlooking the evidence provided for exceptional ability.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not applicable
Business Plan: Not applicable
Advisory Letter: Not applicable
Any other supporting documentation:
Letters from Company Official and Counsel: These letters explicitly requested the Beneficiary’s classification as an individual of exceptional ability.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was remanded.
Reasoning:
The appeal was remanded because the Director erroneously treated the filing as a petition for an advanced degree professional, disregarding the Petitioner’s request for classification based on exceptional ability. The Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to support the Beneficiary’s exceptional ability classification. The decision underscored the importance of accurately reviewing and classifying petitions based on the evidence and requests submitted. The Director is required to issue a new decision considering the Beneficiary’s qualifications as an individual of exceptional ability.
