Date of Decision: March 12, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Epidemiology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Epidemiologist
Field: Biomedical Research in Patient Safety in Healthcare Associated Infections (HAI) and Antimicrobial Resistance
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 proposed research in healthcare associated infections and antimicrobial resistance was acknowledged to have substantial merit and national importance. This research aligns with public health initiatives, particularly with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner provided evidence of published work and involvement in notable projects. Despite additional supporting documents submitted on motion, the evidence did not conclusively demonstrate that the petitioner is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor according to the Dhanasar framework.
Criteria Not Met:
Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner did not sufficiently prove her ability to advance the proposed research. The provided documents, including letters and published articles, were insufficient to establish a record of success or significant interest from the relevant academic and professional community.
Beneficial to Waive the Requirements of a Job Offer and Labor Certification:
The evidence did not convincingly demonstrate that waiving the labor certification and job offer requirements would benefit the United States. The petitioner’s arguments and additional documents were deemed inadequate to overturn the initial decision.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner aims to continue biomedical research focusing on patient safety, healthcare associated infections, and antimicrobial resistance. This work includes contributing to CDC initiatives, co-authoring research articles, and participating in relevant healthcare research projects.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed research was recognized for its potential impact on public health. Her work addresses critical issues in infection control and antimicrobial resistance, aligning with national health priorities. However, the evidence did not adequately show that the petitioner was uniquely positioned to drive this research forward.
Supporting Evidence:
Letters of support and intent from various professionals and organizations.
Evidence of co-authorship of research articles and contributions to scientific manuals.
A Google Scholar citation report indicating limited citations of her work.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The provided documents, including additional publications and letters, did not sufficiently address the deficiencies noted in the initial decision.
The petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not substantiated with the necessary evidence as outlined in the Matter of Lozada.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Summarized letters supported the petitioner’s research but lacked compelling evidence of her leading role or substantial impact.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Included letters from colleagues and professionals in the field, which reiterated the importance of her research but did not provide new substantial evidence of her positioning to advance her proposed endeavor.
Any other supporting documentation:
Additional publications and evidence of participation in research projects were provided but did not sufficiently meet the criteria required to overturn the initial decision.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petition for a national interest waiver was denied.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the evidentiary criteria to prove that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed research endeavor. The provided evidence, including additional documentation submitted on motion, was insufficient to overturn the initial denial. Consequently, the appeal was denied.
