Date of Decision: November 3, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Exercise, Nutrition, and Preventive Health
Petitioner Information
Profession: Educator and Researcher
Field: Exercise, Nutrition, and Preventive Health
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Intrinsic Merit: The petitioner demonstrated that her work in exercise, nutrition, and preventive health has substantial intrinsic merit. Her research focuses on the impact of lifestyle changes on preventing and treating diseases.
- National in Scope: The petitioner’s research has been used by fellow scientists and physicians across the country to develop lifestyle regimens for long-term health management.
Criteria Not Met:
- Greater Benefit to the National Interest: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that her work would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker with the same qualifications.
- Influence on the Field: While the petitioner provided evidence of citations and letters from colleagues, the influence of her work on the field as a whole was not deemed significant enough.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner aimed to continue her research on exercise and nutrition, particularly focusing on how lifestyle changes can prevent and manage chronic diseases.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s work in behavioral medicine has intrinsic merit and national importance. However, the evidence provided did not convincingly show that her contributions had a broad impact on the field or that her continued work would be in the national interest to the required degree.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided scholarly articles, citation data, and letters of support. The documentation included 10 authored or co-authored scholarly articles, 50 total citations, and descriptions of her research projects.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The primary inconsistency noted was the petitioner’s assertion of widespread influence and implementation of her findings, which was not sufficiently supported by the evidence.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not applicable.
Business Plan: Not applicable.
Advisory Letter: The petitioner submitted letters from supervisors and independent researchers attesting to the significance of her work, but they did not provide compelling evidence of her research’s impact on the field.
Any Other Supporting Documentation: Included citations and publication details of her work, but the overall influence on the field was not sufficiently demonstrated.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that waiving the labor certification requirement was in the national interest of the United States.
