Date of Decision: August 23, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Electrical Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Electrical Engineering Researcher
Field: Electrical Engineering, specifically in soft lithography and wearable electronics
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance: The Petitioner’s research in developing soft wearable sensing technology using soft lithography has substantial merit and potential healthcare applications.
Criteria Not Met:
Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of his ability to advance the proposed endeavor, including a lack of evidence of significant impact or widespread interest in his work.
Beneficial to the United States: As the Petitioner did not meet the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, further discussion of the third prong was deemed unnecessary.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner, an electrical engineering researcher and Ph.D. student, aims to develop soft wearable sensing technology for healthcare and other applications. By using soft lithography technology, he seeks to replace conventional rigid components with soft components to produce wearable electronics that move comfortably with the wearer.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s proposed work in soft lithography and wearable electronics has significant potential for healthcare applications, such as detecting harmful chemicals in the air and water. The evidence provided includes letters of support from academic and industry professionals, highlighting the potential impact of the Petitioner’s work.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The Petitioner did not establish that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, which is essential for meeting the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. Without this, the Petitioner does not qualify for a national interest waiver, making further analysis under the third prong unnecessary.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted documentation of his academic credentials, published research articles, conference presentations, patent applications, reference letters, and citation reports. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the Petitioner’s ability to advance his proposed work. Letters from his Ph.D. advisor and other professionals expressed interest but did not provide concrete support or evidence of significant impact.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were no significant inconsistencies noted in the proposed endeavor. The primary issue was the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating the Petitioner’s positioning to advance his research.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The Petitioner provided letters from his Ph.D. advisor and other professionals, indicating potential collaboration and interest in his research. However, these letters did not offer substantial evidence of his ability to advance his proposed work.
Business Plan:
No specific business plan was summarized in the decision.
Advisory Letter:
No specific advisory letters were summarized in the decision.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner submitted partial copies of published articles and patent applications. Many citations were related to his work on cooling power transformers, which was not directly related to his proposed endeavor in soft lithography and wearable electronics.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, failing to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Without this, he does not qualify for a national interest waiver, making further analysis under the third prong unnecessary.
