Date of Decision: January 26, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: International Relations
Petitioner Information
Profession: Assistant Professor
Field: International Relations
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None:
The petitioner did not meet any of the specific criteria required to establish eligibility for the EB-2 classification or to demonstrate exceptional ability.
Criteria Not Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that her proposed endeavor would have national importance. The documentation provided did not show how her research and teaching activities would have a significant impact beyond her immediate employment.
Well-Positioned to Advance the Endeavor:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. The record lacked detailed information about her specific future activities and how they would contribute to the field of international relations in a nationally significant way.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue her work as an assistant professor and researcher in international relations, focusing on research and teaching activities in the United States.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the petitioner’s role in education and research is recognized as valuable, the evidence provided did not demonstrate how her specific proposed endeavor would have national or global implications within the field of international relations.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided a detailed statement and supporting documents, but these did not sufficiently describe her specific future activities and their potential national impact. The petitioner also failed to address how her work would have broader implications beyond her immediate academic environment.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor
The petitioner did not provide a clear and detailed description of her specific proposed endeavor. The evidence focused more on her general role as an assistant professor rather than detailing her unique contributions and plans.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not provided or applicable in this case.
Business Plan:
Not provided or applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter:
Included letters from colleagues and academic professionals, but they lacked specific details on the petitioner’s proposed future activities and their national importance.
Any other supporting documentation:
The petitioner provided additional supporting documents, but these did not establish the advanced degree equivalence or demonstrate how her work would have substantial merit and national importance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied due to the petitioner not demonstrating that her proposed endeavor would have national importance or that she is well-positioned to advance it.
Reasoning: The evidence did not establish a sufficiently detailed proposed endeavor, nor did it demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Further analysis of eligibility under the remaining Dhanasar prongs was deemed unnecessary.
