Date of Decision: May 9, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Information Technology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Software Developer
Field: Computer Information Systems
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Approved
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced degree requirement met.
The Beneficiary possesses a master’s degree in computer applications from India, which has been evaluated as equivalent to a U.S. master’s degree in computer information systems.
Relevant experience in the field.
The Beneficiary has 12 months of experience in the job offered or as an assistant consultant, programmer analyst, or equivalent.
Criteria Not Met:
Initially, the Director determined that the Beneficiary’s degree was not in a field permitted by the labor certification.
Discrepancy in names on educational documents.
The Beneficiary’s educational documents showed name discrepancies which required additional evidence to clarify.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner aimed to employ the Beneficiary as a software developer, asserting that he met the requirements for classification under the EB-2 NIW category.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The decision recognized the substantial merit of the Beneficiary’s advanced degree and relevant experience in the field of computer information systems.
Key quote: “The Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary’s degree is the equivalent of a master’s degree in computer information systems and therefore meets the educational requirements for the offered position.”
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner provided the Beneficiary’s master’s degree and transcripts, along with two credentials evaluations equating the education to a U.S. master’s degree in computer information systems.
Key quote: “The Petitioner has also overcome the name discrepancies on the educational documents with independent, objective evidence, including the Beneficiary’s birth certificate and passport.”
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner addressed and clarified the name discrepancies on the Beneficiary’s educational documents with supporting evidence, including a birth certificate and passport.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not provided.
Business Plan:
Not provided.
Advisory Letter:
Not provided.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Credentials evaluations and educational documents with supporting evidence to clarify name discrepancies.
Conclusion
The appeal was approved. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the Beneficiary met the educational and experience requirements for the position of Software Developer, and provided sufficient evidence to address the initial discrepancies noted by the Director.
