Date of Decision: September 19, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Chemistry
Petitioner Information
Profession: Doctoral Candidate in Chemistry
Field: Chemistry
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree: The Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criteria Not Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his proposed endeavor met this criterion.
Beneficial to Waive Job Offer and Labor Certification: The Petitioner did not establish that waiving the job offer and labor certification requirements would be beneficial to the United States.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner, a doctoral candidate in chemistry and a graduate research assistant, aims to continue his research to advance disease treatment methods. His proposed endeavor involves conducting research that could lead to significant advancements in the treatment of various diseases.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor has potential merit, the Director concluded that the evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. The Director did not find adequate evidence to show that the Petitioner’s research would have a significant impact on the U.S. healthcare system or public health.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted various documents, including an education and experience evaluation, letters from colleagues, and evidence of ongoing research. However, the Director found that this evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner’s proposed research. The documentation did not adequately show that the research would lead to significant advancements in disease treatment that would have a broad impact on public health.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Director noted that the Petitioner did not provide a properly completed Application for Alien Employment Certification (Form ETA-750B), but did not explain the deficiencies. This lack of explanation contributed to the insufficiency of the decision for review.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
None specified.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Advisory letters described the Petitioner’s expertise but did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner provided additional documentation, including academic evaluations and research summaries, but these did not resolve the issues identified by the Director.
Conclusion
The appeal was remanded because the Director’s decision was insufficient for review. The Director must issue a new decision containing specific findings that will allow the Petitioner the opportunity to present a meaningful appeal. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination.
