Date of Decision: February 9, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Electrical Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Electrical Engineer
Field: Electrical Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit: The Petitioner demonstrated that his proposed endeavor in microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) switches has substantial merit.
Criteria Not Met:
Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Although he holds an advanced degree and has conducted relevant research, the evidence provided did not show a record of success or substantial positive impact in the field.
Balance of Benefits: The Petitioner did not establish that waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the United States on balance.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor
The Petitioner proposed to build robust and reliable MEMS switches through investigating novel contact materials, contact geometries, and actuators using his extensive experience with device physics, modeling and simulation, micro-device fabrication, electrical and mechanical characterization, and advanced optical and electron microscopy. His goal was to facilitate the next generation of wireless communication technology, such as 5G and Internet of Things (IoT) applications.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The endeavor to develop MEMS switches for next-generation wireless technology was acknowledged as having substantial merit and national importance. The Petitioner provided articles discussing MEMS, IoT, 5G, microchip technology, microsystems, and semiconductors.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted his curriculum vitae, educational credentials, an employment letter, reference letters, journal articles and conference papers, citatory evidence, funding documentation, and peer review activity. However, the evidence did not demonstrate how his work had been utilized in the field or had a significant impact.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor
The Petitioner indicated that he provided an employment letter from a university reflecting that he occupies a research position as a Ph.D. student and intends to be hired as a post-doctoral fellow once he completes his degree. However, this current temporary job and prospective, contingent position did not sufficiently show how he was well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Not applicable.
Any other supporting documentation:
The record included letters from employers and a professional plan but did not connect these to the Petitioner’s specific proposed contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor or that waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the United States. The evidence provided did not demonstrate a record of success or substantial positive impact in the field of electrical engineering.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
