Date of Decision: December 5, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Clinical and Counseling Psychology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Clinical and Counseling Psychologist
Field: Psychology, Child Counseling
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 as a clinical and counseling psychologist has substantial merit. Her work involves providing mental health services, including assessing, diagnosing, and treating patients with psychiatric pathologies and improving communication and cognitive disorders in children and adults.
Criteria Not Met:
- National Importance: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor in clinical and counseling psychology has national importance. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that while the petitioner’s work in psychology is valuable, she did not provide sufficient evidence to show how her specific role would have a significant impact on the U.S. healthcare system on a national level. The petitioner emphasized the general demand for psychologists but did not establish how her work would extend beyond her immediate patients to influence the broader healthcare industry or have substantial positive economic effects.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue her career as a clinical and counseling psychologist in the United States, providing high-quality care to patients with mental health issues. She planned to focus on child counseling, cognitive behavioral therapy, and other therapeutic techniques. The petitioner also expressed a desire to open her own private office offering group therapy and family counseling. However, the AAO found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate how these activities would extend beyond benefiting individual patients to have a broader impact on the U.S. healthcare system on a national scale.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the petitioner’s proposed endeavor in clinical and counseling psychology has merit, the decision concluded that it did not meet the threshold for national importance. The AAO emphasized that the petitioner needed to provide specific evidence demonstrating how her work would impact the U.S. healthcare system or economy on a national scale, which was not sufficiently established.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
Given that the petitioner did not meet the national importance criterion, the AAO did not proceed to evaluate whether waiving the labor certification process would benefit the United States.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided industry reports, a business plan, and a professional statement. However, these were insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The evidence focused on the petitioner’s qualifications and the general significance of psychology rather than demonstrating the specific impact of her work on a national scale.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were no major inconsistencies in the petition, but the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate how her work as a clinical and counseling psychologist would have a significant national impact.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not provided.
Business Plan:
Included but did not establish national importance or substantial positive economic effects.
Advisory Letter:
Not provided.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included industry reports and professional statements, which were insufficient to meet the national importance requirement.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the criteria for demonstrating that her proposed work as a clinical and counseling psychologist would have a significant national impact. The evidence provided was insufficient to support claims of substantial merit and national importance, and the petitioner did not establish eligibility for the EB-2 classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
