Date of Decision: AUG. 25, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Food Science and Technology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Food Scientist and Technologist
Field: Food Science and Technology
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of Scholarly Articles: The Beneficiary authored articles that demonstrate expertise in food science, specifically noted by an article in the Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society.
Criteria Not Met:
- Original Scientific or Scholarly Research Contributions of Major Significance: The appeal failed to establish that the Beneficiary’s research contributions were of major significance in the field, despite assertions of originality and some industry implementation.
- Evidence Supporting Major Significance: Insufficient evidence was provided to show the major significance or industry-wide impact of the Beneficiary’s work, including a lack of detailed validation in recommendation letters and the general acknowledgment of safety by the FDA without demonstrating significant impact.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Beneficiary aimed to continue research in food science, focusing on antioxidant properties and safety validations, crucial for food safety and enhancement.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the Beneficiary’s work is beneficial, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that it had substantial merit and national importance beyond the immediate applications.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The appeal failed to convince that waiving the labor certification requirements would benefit the U.S., as the significant impact and national importance were not adequately demonstrated.
Supporting Evidence:
Research and scholarly articles were presented, but the lack of comprehensive supporting evidence regarding the impact and significance of the work weakened the case.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There was a mismatch in the claimed major significance of the Beneficiary’s research and the evidence provided, which did not fully articulate or quantify the claimed impact.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Letters provided lacked detailed evidence of significant impact or industry transformation due to the Beneficiary’s contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary’s contributions were of major significance to the field of food science and technology.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
