Date of Decision: May 14, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Cardiology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Advanced Cardiac Imaging Fellow
Field: Cardiology
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Advanced Degree: The petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criteria Not Met:
- National Importance: The Director’s decision did not provide adequate analysis under the three-prong Dhanasar framework, particularly regarding the national importance of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor.
- Well Positioned to Advance: The petitioner’s record of citations, presentations, and peer-review was not sufficiently evaluated to establish that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue her work in advanced cardiac imaging, engaging in supervised clinical work and research under a state medical training license. She planned to pursue clinical outcomes research in cardiology, with a focus on non-invasive cardiology, advanced heart failure, and advanced cardiac imaging.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the petitioner’s proposed work in cardiology has substantial merit, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor. The Director’s decision was limited to discussing the petitioner’s record of citations, presentations, and peer-review, without adequately addressing the prospective impact of her research.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The Director’s decision did not fully address this criterion, focusing instead on whether the petitioner was well positioned to advance her endeavor.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted information from the CDC regarding the costs of cardiovascular disease, letters of support discussing her proposed research, and documentation of her research dissemination. However, this documentation was not sufficiently analyzed to demonstrate the national importance of her proposed endeavor.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the potential broader impact of her proposed endeavor. The motion to reconsider did not provide sufficient new arguments to establish errors in the prior decision.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Provided but not sufficiently detailed to support the claim of national importance
Business Plan: Not provided or summarized in the decision
Advisory Letter: Provided but not sufficiently detailed to support the claim of national importance
Other Supporting Documentation: Included information from the CDC and letters of support, which were insufficiently analyzed to establish the broader national importance of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was remanded.
Reasoning: The Director’s decision did not provide adequate analysis under the three-prong Dhanasar framework, particularly regarding the national importance of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor. The matter was remanded for further review and issuance of a new decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
