Date of Decision: October 23, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Neonatology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Academic Physician and Researcher
Field: Neonatology
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s proposed research in neonatology has substantial merit and potential national impact.
The Petitioner’s work focuses on advancing medical treatments for sick newborns, including clinical studies on neurodevelopmental outcomes in extremely low birth weight infants and reducing the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia.
Criteria Not Met:
Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor:
Although the Petitioner has a strong educational background and professional experience, the evidence did not demonstrate a sufficient record of success or substantial interest from relevant parties in his research.
The Petitioner’s research, while published and presented, did not show a significant impact on the field or widespread implementation.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner aimed to conduct clinical research to improve neonatal care, specifically targeting neurodevelopmental outcomes, antibiotic stewardship, and cerebral circulation physiology in neonates.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The proposed research has substantial merit, as it addresses critical issues in neonatal care, such as reducing infant mortality and long-term neurological disabilities.
The research has potential national importance due to its implications for improving healthcare outcomes for newborns.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner provided letters from medical professionals and evidence of published articles and conference presentations.
While the letters and publications indicate the potential significance of the research, they did not provide concrete examples of the research’s broader impact or implementation.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner’s clinical and instructional work would impact the neonatology field and healthcare industry more broadly.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Included a letter of intent for a research grant application to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a neonatal care program.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Letters from professors and physicians discussed the potential benefits of the Petitioner’s research.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner submitted additional articles and research proposals relevant to neonatal care.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not establish that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, and thus did not meet the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
In Re: S-P-P-
Document Name: OCT232017_02B5203.pdf
