Date of Decision: July 8, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Audiology and Speech Pathology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Audiologist and Speech Pathologist
Field: Audiology and Speech Pathology
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Merit: The petitioner demonstrated that her proposed endeavor had substantial merit. Her expertise and knowledge in the field of audiology, speech pathology, and healthcare were acknowledged to provide significant contributions to the treatment of hearing and speech-related pathologies.
Criteria Not Met:
- National Importance: The petitioner failed to sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor. While she showed the substantial merit of her work, she did not provide enough evidence that her services would have a broad impact beyond her immediate patients to influence the audiology and speech pathology fields or the U.S. economy more broadly.
- Beneficial to the United States to Waive the Requirements of the Labor Certification Process: The petitioner did not adequately show that waiving the labor certification requirement would benefit the United States. The evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that her contributions would justify the waiver in light of potential U.S. workers who could fill the same roles.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner proposed to continue her career as an audiologist in the United States, providing services to hospitals, nursing schools, medical clinics, and home healthcare businesses. She aimed to promote significant benefits to U.S. health and communication treatment through her prospective business endeavor, focusing on dysphasia and enhancing communication skills.
Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner’s endeavor was recognized for its substantial merit due to its potential to address hearing and speech-related pathologies. However, the documentation did not show that her work had broader implications that would significantly impact the field of audiology and speech pathology or the U.S. economy at a national level.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process: The petitioner argued that her work would contribute to the U.S. healthcare system by addressing the shortage of audiologists and speech pathologists. However, she did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that her contributions would justify waiving the labor certification process, especially given the existing process to address such shortages through labor certification.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted her curriculum vitae, academic credentials, published articles, and letters of support. These documents demonstrated her ability to significantly impact her field. However, the evidence did not sufficiently show that her contributions would have a substantial positive economic effect or create significant U.S. job opportunities.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor
The petitioner’s assertions about her influence and impact were not fully supported by the evidence provided. The documentation did not clearly show that her work had been widely adopted or recognized to the extent necessary to meet the national importance requirement.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not applicable.
Business Plan: Not provided or summarized in the decision.
Advisory Letter: Provided but not sufficiently detailed to support the claim of national importance.
Any Other Supporting Documentation: Included letters from colleagues and professionals, which praised her work but did not adequately demonstrate her significant impact in the field
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not meet the criteria for demonstrating that her proposed endeavor had national importance or that waiving the labor certification requirement would benefit the United States. The evidence provided was insufficient to support her claims of substantial impact and national importance.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
