Date of Decision: June 27, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Teaching
Petitioner Information
Profession: Teacher
Field: Teaching
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
The petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
The petitioner was able to establish eligibility for the EB-2 classification.
Criteria Not Met:
The petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer and thus of the labor certification would be in the national interest.
The petitioner did not demonstrate that the delay in filing the motion to reopen was reasonable and beyond their control.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner, a teacher, sought second preference immigrant classification and a national interest waiver for the job offer requirement. The proposed endeavor was not clearly outlined in terms of substantial merit and national importance.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance, which are critical for the national interest waiver. The evidence provided did not sufficiently establish the impact and significance of the proposed endeavor on a national scale.
Supporting Evidence:
Letters of Intent: Not applicable.
Advisory Letters: Not mentioned.
Business Plan: Not applicable.
Additional Documentation: The petitioner provided documentation and a brief to support the argument that the delay in filing the motion was due to circumstances beyond their control. This included communications with previous and current legal counsel.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s documentation did not convincingly support the assertion that the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control. The communications provided did not substantiate the claim of unawareness regarding the time required to gather evidence or financial difficulties as valid reasons for the delay.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable in this case.
Business Plan:
Not applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter:
Not mentioned in the documentation.
Any other supporting documentation:
The petitioner included a statement and email communications explaining the circumstances under which they retained new counsel. However, this was not sufficient to demonstrate that the delay was reasonable and beyond their control.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning:
The petitioner’s motion to reopen and reconsider was denied due to the failure to demonstrate that the delay in filing was reasonable and beyond their control. The petitioner’s new evidence and arguments did not overcome the grounds for the previous decision. The petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The final determination was based on the insufficiency of evidence to warrant excusing the untimely filing and lack of substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor.
