Date of Decision: July 24, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: General Surgery and Breast Oncology
Petitioner Information
Profession: General Surgery Physician Scientist
Field: General Surgery and Breast Oncology
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Area of Substantial Intrinsic Merit: The petitioner’s work as a surgeon and physician scientist in general surgery and breast oncology.
- National Scope: The research and practice in general surgery and breast oncology are recognized to have national importance.
Criteria Not Met:
- Impact Beyond Personal Practice: The petitioner’s work was not shown to influence the field beyond her immediate practice and patients.
- Prospective National Benefit: There was insufficient evidence that the petitioner’s future contributions would benefit the national interest to a substantially greater degree than a U.S. worker with similar qualifications.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue her work as a breast oncology surgeon and general surgery physician scientist, focusing on advanced surgical techniques and ongoing research projects related to cancer treatment and surgery.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s work was recognized as having substantial intrinsic merit, particularly in advanced minimally invasive surgical techniques and breast oncology. However, evidence of national influence and widespread implementation of her research was lacking.
Supporting Evidence:
- Reference Letters: Multiple letters were submitted attesting to the petitioner’s skills and contributions. However, these letters were found to be lacking in detailed examples of the petitioner’s influence on the field as a whole.
- Research and Publications: The petitioner provided documentation of her research presentations and manuscripts submitted for publication. The evidence did not show significant independent citation or adoption of her findings.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s claims of significant national impact and influence were not supported by sufficient documentary evidence.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Summarized testimonials from various professionals in the field acknowledged the petitioner’s expertise but did not provide specific examples of her work influencing the field as a whole.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
The letters were noted for their repetitive content, suggesting lack of independent evaluation. They did not provide specific examples of national impact.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the petitioner’s influence beyond her immediate professional environment.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the national interest of the United States. Despite the petitioner’s recognized skills and achievements, the evidence failed to show a significant impact on the field as a whole or a substantial prospective benefit to the national interest.
