Date of Decision: December 3, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Environmental Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Environmental Engineer
Field: Coastal Restoration and Conservation
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Motion to Reconsider: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Exceptional Ability: The Petitioner was previously determined to qualify as an individual of exceptional ability.
Proposed Endeavor: The Petitioner provided detailed descriptions of the proposed endeavor, focusing on coastal restoration and conservation.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Broad Impact: The Petitioner failed to show that the proposed endeavor would extend beyond his specific projects to impact the field of coastal restoration and conservation more broadly.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner aims to work as an environmental engineer focusing on coastal restoration and conservation. His project involves recovering coastal dunes and implementing sustainable practices to protect and restore coastal environments.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The decision emphasized that while the Petitioner’s work in coastal restoration and conservation has merit, it did not rise to the level of national importance. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his work would have a broad impact beyond his specific projects.
Supporting Evidence:
Initial Submission: Included detailed descriptions of the Petitioner’s work, educational background, and professional achievements in environmental engineering.
Further Submission on Appeal: Provided additional explanations and documents, including project plans and personal statements outlining the importance of his work.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The primary inconsistency was the lack of evidence demonstrating the broader impact of the Petitioner’s work. While the Petitioner provided detailed descriptions of his projects, he did not establish that his work would significantly impact the field of coastal restoration and conservation at a national level.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable in this case.
Business Plan:
Not applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter:
Not applicable in this case.
Any other supporting documentation:
Project Plans: Detailed the specific coastal restoration projects the Petitioner aimed to undertake.
Personal Statements: Explained the Petitioner’s vision and the potential impact of his work.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. While the Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability, he did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor met the national importance criteria set forth in the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner’s work, while valuable, was not shown to have a broad impact on the field of coastal restoration and conservation. Consequently, the initial decision to deny the petition was upheld, and the motion to reconsider was dismissed.
