Date of Decision: February 2, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Environmental Science
Petitioner Information
Profession: Environmental Scientist
Field: Environmental Science
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit: The Petitioner demonstrated that her proposed endeavor in urban water management and sustainability has substantial merit.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has national importance.
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 intended to continue her research in urban water management and sustainability, focusing on green infrastructure development, resilience assessment tools, and decision support systems. Her research aimed to address the impacts of climate change, such as flooding and drought, and improve access to safe drinking water.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The endeavor to develop and expand models on climate change effects and improve urban water management was acknowledged as having substantial merit. However, the project was not found to have national importance. The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner’s work would impact the field of environmental science or broader U.S. interests on a national level.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted letters from faculty members, published articles, and a Google Scholar printout showing citations of her work. These documents highlighted her academic achievements but did not establish the broader national impact of her proposed activities.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor
The Petitioner’s proposed endeavor included seeking postdoctoral positions and further training. At the time of filing, she was still a graduate student, not yet eligible for postdoctoral positions. The evidence provided did not sufficiently show that she was well-positioned to advance her proposed research 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 faculty members and a Google Scholar printout 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 her proposed endeavor had national importance. The record lacked detailed information on how her work would produce substantial positive effects or broader impacts at a national level. Additionally, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she was well-positioned to advance her proposed research endeavor. Without meeting the national importance and well-positioned criteria, the petition failed to justify a national interest waiver.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
In Re: 23070928
FEB022023_04B5203.pdf
