Date of Decision: September 21, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Computational Mathematics
Petitioner Information
Profession: Computational Mathematics Researcher
Field: Computational Mathematics
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance
The Petitioner’s proposed research in developing models to capture and analyze failure mechanisms of safety and economically critical infrastructure systems was recognized as having substantial merit and national importance.
Demonstration of advanced degree qualifications
The Petitioner was found to qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criteria Not Met:
Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of a record of success or progress in his field. The provided evidence, including his graduate research and project work, did not demonstrate a significant impact on the field or notable recognition from independent scholars.
Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver’s Benefit to the United States
The Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements. He did not provide compelling evidence that obtaining a labor certification would be impractical or that his contributions were of sufficient urgency to warrant forgoing the certification process.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to conduct research into failure mechanisms within infrastructure development, focusing on developing models to analyze and capture these mechanisms for safety and economic impact.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s proposed research was found to have substantial merit and national importance due to its potential impact on improving the safety and economic viability of critical infrastructure systems.
Key quotes or references:
“The endeavor’s merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education.” (Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884)
Supporting Evidence:
The evidence included descriptions of the Petitioner’s graduate research and a project involving software tools used in cancer research.
Key quotes or references:
“The Petitioner had not demonstrated a record of success or progress in his field, or a degree of interest in his work from relevant parties, that rises to the level of rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor.”
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
No specific inconsistencies in the proposed endeavor were noted, but the evidence provided did not sufficiently support the Petitioner’s claims of being well positioned to advance his research.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not Applicable
Business Plan:
Not Applicable
Advisory Letter:
Not Applicable
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner provided offer letters from potential employers, but did not fully explain the impact of these offers on his proposed endeavor.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied. The Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that he met the necessary criteria under the Dhanasar framework to warrant a national interest waiver.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of a record of success in his field or compelling reasons why waiving the job offer and labor certification requirements would benefit the United States.
