Date of Decision: June 7, 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: Cardiologist
Field: Cardiology
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Advanced Degree: The petitioner demonstrated qualification as an advanced degree professional by providing evidence of a foreign medical degree and passing scores on Steps 1, 2, and 3 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE).
Criteria Not Met:
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his proposed endeavor had national importance. While his work in cardiology was recognized, the documentation did not clearly demonstrate the broader impact of his work on the U.S. healthcare system or policy.
- Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to show he was well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. The submitted documents did not convincingly demonstrate his capacity to significantly influence or advance the field of cardiology.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to work in cardiology, focusing on the treatment of complex valvular heart disease and cardio-oncology. Additionally, he planned to continue teaching and clinical research, improving technicians’ skills, providing guest lectures, and volunteering as a preceptor for physician assistant students. His research included improving cardiovascular procedures and treatments, particularly in underserved areas.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s endeavor was recognized for its potential merit due to its focus on improving cardiovascular treatments and public health. However, the documentation did not show that his work had broader implications that would significantly impact the U.S. healthcare system 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 his work would contribute to the U.S. healthcare system by enhancing cardiovascular treatments and reducing healthcare costs. However, he did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that his contributions would justify waiving the labor certification process.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, letters of support, and documentation of his research and clinical achievements. These documents demonstrated his involvement in the field of cardiology. However, the evidence did not sufficiently show that his contributions would have a substantial positive impact on the U.S. healthcare system or create significant job opportunities.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor
The petitioner’s assertions about his influence and impact were not fully supported by the evidence provided. The documentation did not clearly show that his 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 his work but did not adequately demonstrate his significant impact in the field.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not meet the criteria for demonstrating that his proposed endeavor had national importance or that waiving the labor certification requirement would benefit the United States. The evidence provided was insufficient to support his claims of substantial impact and national importance.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
