Date of Decision: NOV. 30, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Computer Science
Petitioner Information
Profession: Computer Scientist and Instructor
Field: Machine Learning and Graph Mining
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Educational Background: The Petitioner provided evidence of holding an advanced degree in computer science with specialization in machine learning and graph mining.
- Research Contributions: The Petitioner demonstrated engagement in significant research activities during their doctoral study, contributing to the fields of sensor networks and machine learning.
Criteria Not Met:
- Proposed Endeavor: The Petitioner did not clearly identify a specific proposed endeavor, instead broadly stating goals without detailed plans or future activities.
- National Importance: The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that their teaching activities or proposed research would have a national impact beyond their immediate academic environment.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to advance the field of sensor networks and machine learning through research and teaching. However, specific details regarding the nature of future research were not provided, and the teaching impact was limited to their students.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s work in machine learning and sensor networks is of substantial merit. However, the lack of a defined proposed endeavor and evidence of broader national impact rendered the claim of national importance insufficient.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The Petitioner did not establish that waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the U.S. The evidence presented did not demonstrate an urgent national interest in the Petitioner’s contributions that would warrant bypassing the labor certification process.
Supporting Evidence
Letters of Intent:
The Petitioner provided letters from academic advisors and colleagues highlighting past research contributions. However, these letters focused on previous work without outlining future research plans or demonstrating national impact.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Advisory letters from experts in the field were provided but lacked specifics on the Petitioner’s future endeavors and their potential impact on a national scale.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner’s documentation contained general statements about intended research and teaching goals but lacked specific, actionable plans. This inconsistency weakened the argument for substantial merit and national importance.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The letters supported the Petitioner’s past achievements but did not provide a clear vision of future work or its national significance.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
While advisory letters were submitted, they primarily addressed the Petitioner’s past work and did not sufficiently outline a specific future endeavor.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Not applicable.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, failing to establish a specific proposed endeavor with substantial merit and national importance.
Reasoning: The Petitioner’s lack of detailed future plans and evidence of national impact led to the decision to dismiss the appeal. Without a clear proposed endeavor, the Petitioner could not demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
