Date of Decision: June 5, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Semiconductor Equipment Manufacturing
Petitioner Information
Profession: Equipment Engineer
Field: Test/Equipment Engineering for Semiconductor Fabrication
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
The Petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary’s proposed endeavor has substantial merit due to its innovative contributions to semiconductor fabrication technology.
The Petitioner established the Beneficiary’s qualifications as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criteria Not Met:
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary’s proposed endeavor has national importance, as the potential broader impact of the Beneficiary’s work was not sufficiently documented.
The evidence did not show that the Beneficiary’s work as an equipment engineer would have substantial positive economic effects or significant potential to employ U.S. workers.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Beneficiary’s proposed endeavor involves test and equipment engineering for a leading supplier of semiconductor process equipment. The work includes installing new equipment, performing semiconductor fabrication maintenance, and supporting facility upgrades.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary’s work has global implications within the semiconductor industry, contributing to technological advancements and economic impact. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Beneficiary’s specific work. The Petitioner’s company operations and innovations were acknowledged, but the direct impact of the Beneficiary’s role was not clearly linked to national importance.
Supporting Evidence:
Letters of Intent: Information about the Petitioner’s business operations and technological contributions.
Advisory Letters: An article summarizing a report by the President’s Council on Economic Advisors on the U.S. semiconductor industry.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to show that the Beneficiary’s specific role would have a broader impact on the industry or the national economy.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Summary: The Petitioner highlighted its global business operations and technological advancements in semiconductor fabrication.
Key Points: The evidence provided lacked a direct connection to the national importance of the Beneficiary’s specific contributions.
Business Plan: Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Summary: An article discussing the challenges and recommendations for the U.S. semiconductor industry, emphasizing the need for a world-class workforce.
Key Points: The general industry importance was noted, but the link to the Beneficiary’s specific role was insufficient.
Any other supporting documentation: Not applicable.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, failing to demonstrate the national importance of the Beneficiary’s proposed endeavor. The evidence provided was not sufficient to show that the Beneficiary’s work as an equipment engineer would have substantial positive economic effects or significant potential to employ U.S. workers.
