Date of Decision: May 17, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Applied Mathematics
Petitioner Information
Profession: Assistant Professor
Field: Applied Mathematics
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Advanced Degree: The beneficiary holds a doctorate in applied mathematics, meeting the educational requirements for the position.
Criteria Not Met:
- Qualifying Experience: The Director determined that the beneficiary did not meet the experience requirement of having 12 months of experience in a financial company, as specified in the labor certification.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner, a state university, sought to employ the beneficiary as an assistant professor in applied mathematics.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Director’s decision did not address this prong due to the focus on the beneficiary’s qualifying experience.
Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor:
The Director’s decision did not address this prong due to the focus on the beneficiary’s qualifying experience.
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 address this prong due to the focus on the beneficiary’s qualifying experience.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted the beneficiary’s degree certificate and academic record from the University of [University Name], showing a doctorate in applied mathematics. For experience, the petitioner provided documentation of the beneficiary’s internships with three French companies, totaling 15½ months during 2010-2012. The documentation included letters from officials in each company, confirming dates of service and describing duties and projects. However, the Director did not consider this evidence because it was not listed on the labor certification.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s evidence did not align with the requirements of the labor certification. The internships were not listed on the labor certification, leading the Director to question the credibility of the claimed experience.
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: Not provided
Other Supporting Documentation: Included letters from officials of the French companies and pay statements, which were not fully considered due to their omission from the labor certification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was remanded.
Reasoning: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further consideration of whether the beneficiary’s internships with the three French companies constitute qualifying experience with financial companies. The petitioner established that the beneficiary had 15½ months of experience, exceeding the 12-month requirement, but it is unclear if all this experience was with financial companies, as required by the labor certification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
