Date of Decision: June 25, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Biomedical Materials Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Biomedical Materials Developer
Field: Biomedical Materials Engineering and Alloy Development
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded for further consideration
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree:
The Petitioner provided evidence of an advanced degree equivalent from a foreign institution.
Updated career certificates demonstrated at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in biomedical materials engineering and alloy development.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s proposed endeavor in biomedical materials engineering has potential national importance.
Criteria Not Met:
Exceptional Ability:
The previous decision did not establish the Petitioner’s eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability; however, this was not necessary since the advanced degree criterion was satisfied.
Well-Positioned to Advance the Endeavor:
The initial decision did not sufficiently analyze whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under the Dhanasar framework.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner aims to advance biomedical materials engineering and alloy development, which is significant for medical and technological advancements.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The endeavor’s merit lies in its potential to impact health and technology sectors positively. The national importance is underscored by the potential benefits to the U.S. economy and public health.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner provided updated career certificates, academic credentials, and additional documentation to support the advanced degree claim and the significance of the proposed endeavor.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
No specific inconsistencies were noted, but the analysis was remanded for further consideration.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not specified in detail but mentioned as part of the evidence.
Business Plan:
Not specifically detailed in the decision summary.
Advisory Letter:
Not specifically detailed in the decision summary.
Other Supporting Documentation:
Updated career certificates providing detailed information on job responsibilities and experience.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The case was remanded to the Director for further analysis under the Dhanasar framework.
Reasoning:
The Director must reconsider the evidence under the three-pronged Dhanasar test to determine if the national interest waiver criteria are met, specifically focusing on the proposed endeavor’s merit, the Petitioner’s ability to advance it, and the overall benefit to the U.S.
