Date of Decision: December 30, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Psychology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Consultant Psychologist
Field: Psychology, Business Coaching, Artificial Intelligence, Personality Theory
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner demonstrated that her proposed endeavor in psychology and business coaching, specifically focusing on artificial intelligence and personality theory, had substantial merit and national importance. Her work aims to guide leaders and improve business performance through psychological principles.
Criteria Not Met:
- Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show she was well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. Despite her academic credentials and professional experience, the inconsistency in her proposed career plans undermined the strength of her application.
- Beneficial to the United States to Waive the Requirements of the Labor Certification Process: The petitioner failed to show that, on balance, waiving the labor certification requirement would be beneficial to the United States. The evidence provided did not convincingly demonstrate the national interest in her contributions.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant psychologist, guiding leaders and teaching them effective decision-making based on personality theory. She also planned to advance her research in artificial intelligence and data science.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor was recognized for its substantial merit and national importance due to its potential impact on business performance and leadership. However, the inconsistency in her career plans weakened her case.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The petitioner argued that her work would enhance business performance and leadership in the United States. However, the inconsistency in her proposed endeavors and the lack of strong supporting evidence led to the conclusion that waiving the labor certification process was not justified.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted her curriculum vitae, academic credentials, published articles, and letters of support. However, these documents did not adequately demonstrate her ability to significantly impact her field. The letters from colleagues and professionals praised her work but did not provide concrete examples of her research being implemented or having a substantial influence.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s assertions about her influence and impact were not fully supported by the evidence provided. The documentation did not clearly show that her work had been widely adopted or recognized in the fields of psychology and business coaching.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not provided or summarized in the decision.
Advisory Letter:
Provided but not sufficiently detailed to support the claim of national importance.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included letters from colleagues and professionals, which praised her work but did not adequately demonstrate her 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 to support her claims of substantial impact and national importance.
