Date of Decision: September 9, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Training and Development
Petitioner Information
Profession: Training and Development Manager
Field: Training and Development
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree: The Petitioner holds an advanced degree in the field of marketing and business development.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has national importance.
Material Changes Post-Filing: The Petitioner made significant changes to her proposed endeavor after filing, which cannot retroactively establish eligibility.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner initially proposed to work as a training and development manager, planning and coordinating training activities and staff for organizations. In response to a request for evidence (RFE), she revised her proposal to focus on providing advice and guidance to U.S. companies on human resources and business development, particularly in cross-border projects involving Brazil and Latin America.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the proposed endeavor has potential merit, the evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that the endeavor has national importance. The initial proposal lacked specificity on how the Petitioner’s work would have a broader impact on the U.S. economy or national interest. The revised proposal introduced material changes that could not be retroactively applied to establish eligibility.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted a business plan, statements about her qualifications and proposed activities, and general letters of support. However, these documents did not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of her proposed endeavor. The business plan lacked detailed financial projections and evidence of committed investments, and the letters of support did not provide specific information about the broader impact of the Petitioner’s work.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner’s initial proposal was to seek employment with existing U.S. companies, but this shifted to managing her own business in response to the RFE. This material change in the proposed endeavor created discrepancies that could not be resolved retroactively. The Petitioner also did not provide clear evidence of how her services would rise to the level of national importance.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
None specified.
Business Plan:
The Petitioner provided a business plan for her business, but it lacked detailed financial projections and evidence of committed investments.
Advisory Letter:
Advisory letters described the Petitioner’s expertise but did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner provided additional documentation, including academic evaluations and employment letters, but they did not resolve the inconsistencies in her proposed endeavor or establish the required level of national importance.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Additionally, the significant changes to her proposed endeavor after filing could not retroactively establish eligibility. Consequently, the Petitioner did not qualify for a national interest waiver.
