Date of Decision: October 31, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Data Science
Petitioner Information
Profession: Data Scientist
Field: Optimization and Machine Learning
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree Professional: The Petitioner established eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The Director concluded that the Petitioner is not well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar’s second prong.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner intends to continue developing and applying optimization and machine learning techniques to solve business and practical problems. His projects include optimizing public services, reducing government costs, improving transportation safety, and collaborating on environmental research to stabilize dredged materials.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as it involves applying data science and optimization techniques to various practical problems with potential significant benefits. However, the Director concluded that the evidence provided did not adequately demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The decision did not sufficiently address the documentation and arguments provided by the Petitioner.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted evidence, including research publications, articles discussing the applications of his research in various industries, and statements outlining his employment history and future research plans. However, the Director’s decision did not adequately address this evidence.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were no specific inconsistencies noted in the proposed endeavor. The issue was primarily the insufficient demonstration of national importance and the Petitioner being well positioned to advance the endeavor.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not specified.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Not specified.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner provided research publications and articles discussing the potential applications of his work.
Conclusion
The appeal resulted in the remanding of the case for further review. The Director’s decision was withdrawn due to inadequate consideration of the evidence provided. The case will be reviewed again to determine if the Petitioner meets all three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar framework, with a specific focus on analyzing the national importance of the proposed endeavor and whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance it.
