Date of Decision: March 6, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Transportation Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Civil and Mechanical Engineer
Field: Transportation Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit: The Director concluded that the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor in transportation engineering has substantial merit.
Professional Qualification: The Petitioner was determined to be a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor would broadly impact the field of transportation engineering to establish national importance.
Position to Advance the Endeavor: Insufficient evidence was provided to show the Petitioner’s track record, financial support, and plans for advancing the proposed endeavor.
Benefit to the United States: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor
The Petitioner, a civil and mechanical engineer specializing in transportation issues, aims to continue working in civil and mechanical engineering, specifically focusing on transportation issues such as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and related activities.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate its national importance. The Director noted that the academic duties and proposed projects lacked documentation to show a broader impact on the field of transportation engineering.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner provided evidence of his education and experience, a personal statement, recommendation letters, and descriptions of past research projects. However, the evidence did not sufficiently support the claimed national importance of his proposed endeavor.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor
The Petitioner’s claims of the national importance of his projects were not sufficiently corroborated by documentary evidence. The evidence provided, including grant funding requests and project summaries, did not adequately demonstrate the potential broad impact of the proposed endeavor.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The Petitioner included letters of recommendation and summaries of ongoing research projects, but these did not specifically identify transportation planning and management as components of the project.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
The advisory letters mentioned grant proposals but did not include documentary evidence of these proposals being submitted to or approved by the Transportation Research Board.
Any other supporting documentation:
The Petitioner did not submit articles, reports, or other evidence to support the claimed potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed due to the Petitioner not meeting all three prongs of the Dhanasar framework.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor, his position to advance it, or that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. The evidence provided did not support the claimed broad impact of the proposed work.
