Date of Decision: May 24, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Systems Analysis in the Oil and Gas Industry
Petitioner Information
Profession: Systems Analyst
Field: Systems Analysis in the Oil and Gas Industry
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree: The Petitioner holds a foreign degree equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree plus more than five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty, equivalent to a master’s degree under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
Professional Membership: The Petitioner provided proof of membership in professional associations relevant to her field.
Criteria Not Met:
None explicitly noted, as the decision was remanded for further review.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to establish a company in Florida to work as a consultant for U.S.-based oil and gas companies, designing and implementing systems and models to improve their existing methods. The Petitioner provided a detailed business plan outlining the types of services she intends to offer, the processes she would follow with customers, and details about intended staffing, marketing, and other aspects of the consulting business.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Director initially denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner’s response to the Request for Evidence (RFE) constituted a material change to the proposed endeavor. However, upon appeal, it was determined that the second statement did not contradict or materially change the original statement but rather provided more detail. The Petitioner’s endeavor was deemed to have potential substantial merit and national importance, particularly in the context of the oil and gas industry.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted various documents, including academic records, a detailed business plan, letters of support from peers and employers, and additional information about the intended impact of her work. This documentation demonstrated the Petitioner’s qualifications and the potential impact of her proposed endeavor.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Director’s denial was based on the perceived material change to the proposed endeavor. Upon appeal, it was determined that the Petitioner’s response to the RFE did not constitute a material change but provided necessary detail. The record, however, was not fully developed with respect to the merits of the Petitioner’s national interest waiver claim.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
None specified.
Business Plan:
The business plan outlined the operations of the proposed consulting company, including financial projections and the scope of services to be offered.
Advisory Letter:
Advisory letters described the Petitioner’s expertise and the impact of her proposed business on the oil and gas industry.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Additional documentation included academic records, professional certificates, and letters of recommendation.
Conclusion
The appeal resulted in the decision being remanded. The Director’s initial denial lacked specific reasons and detailed explanations, which limited the Petitioner’s ability to prepare a substantive appeal. The Director must issue a new decision, providing detailed explanations if the decision remains a denial.
