Date of Decision: May 30, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer
Petitioner Information
Profession: Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer Researcher
Field: Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer
Nationality: [Nationality]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None: The petitioner did not meet any of the required evidentiary criteria for exceptional ability classification.
Criteria Not Met:
Academic Record: The petitioner did not provide evidence of a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, or other institution of learning related to the area of exceptional ability.
Full-Time Experience: The petitioner did not submit letters from prior employers showing at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation.
Professional Certification: No evidence was provided for a license to practice the profession or certification for a particular occupation.
Salary/Remuneration: The petitioner did not demonstrate that she commanded a salary or other remuneration indicative of exceptional ability.
Professional Associations: The petitioner did not provide evidence of membership in professional associations.
Recognition for Achievements: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry by peers, governmental entities, or professional/business organizations.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner intended to work as a researcher and teacher in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, focusing on fluid mechanics, heat transfer, and fire safety research. Her responsibilities would include teaching courses, collaborating on fire safety research, studying properties of nano and ferrofluids, and supervising graduate students.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s research in fluid mechanics and heat transfer, including fire safety and nano/ferrofluids, was found to have substantial merit. Her work had potential applications in biomedical engineering, medical diagnostics, and fire safety training.
Key Quote: “Her work with ferrofluids has a broad range of potential applications that are meritorious for their medical applications and their prospective benefit to the national economy.”
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted letters of support and published articles discussing the benefits of her research areas. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate her record of success or the positive interest generated by her work among relevant parties.
Key Quote: “While the record indicates the petitioner may have provided support and assistance to the development of [projects], it does not support the claimed significance of her particular role.”
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence or clarification regarding her specific contributions to previous achievements and the impact of her proposed endeavor.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not provided.
Business Plan: Not provided.
Advisory Letter: Provided but lacking specific details about contributions.
Any Other Supporting Documentation: Provided articles and letters lacked sufficient evidence of the petitioner’s significant contributions or their impact on the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied. The petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability and failed to provide sufficient evidence for the criteria required for the EB-2 NIW classification.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not establish a record of success or positive interest in her work, and she did not demonstrate that her contributions would benefit the United States to a degree warranting a waiver of the job offer requirement.
