Date of Decision: November 30, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Clinical Research Coordination
Petitioner Information
Profession: Clinical Research Coordinator
Field: Psychology, Clinical Research, Data Science, Artificial Intelligence
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- None: The petitioner failed to consistently demonstrate any specific criteria of substantial merit and national importance for the proposed endeavor.
Criteria Not Met:
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner did not provide consistent and probative information regarding her proposed endeavor. The initial career plan involved working with a healthcare or research facility on mental health research, while the updated plan focused on business consultancy and artificial intelligence without a clear explanation for the changes.
- Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of being well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. There were discrepancies in her career plan that affected the credibility of her qualifications.
- Beneficial to the United States to Waive the Requirements of the Labor Certification Process: The petitioner did not demonstrate that waiving the labor certification requirement would be beneficial to the United States. The evidence provided did not support her claims of significant national impact.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner initially proposed to work in clinical research coordination, focusing on mental health. Later, she changed her proposed endeavor to working as a business consultant and expanding her data science and artificial intelligence company without providing an explanation for the change.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavors were not consistently described, and the new facts presented were materially inconsistent with the initial evidence. This lack of consistency undermined her claim of substantial merit and national importance.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her work would justify waiving the labor certification process. The discrepancies in her career plans affected the overall credibility of her petition.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted her career plans, academic credentials, and letters of support. However, these documents did not adequately demonstrate her ability to significantly impact her field due to inconsistencies and lack of supporting evidence.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavors were inconsistent between the initial submission and the response to the request for evidence (RFE). The changes in her career plan were not explained, affecting the overall credibility of her petition.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Provided but inconsistent with initial career plan.
Advisory Letter:
Included but did not sufficiently support the claim of national importance.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included various letters and credentials that did not adequately demonstrate the petitioner’s significant impact in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the criteria for demonstrating that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor or that waiving the labor certification requirement would be beneficial to the United States. The evidence provided was insufficient and inconsistent, affecting the credibility of her petition.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
