Date of Decision: March 3, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Geology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Geology Researcher
Field: Geology, specifically microfossils and their applications in environmental and paleoenvironmental assessments
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The Petitioner demonstrated the merit and national importance of her proposed research involving microfossils and environmental assessments. Her work has broader implications for the field and is disseminated through scientific journals and conferences.
Criteria Not Met:
- Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that her research findings have been implemented or widely recognized in the geology field. Her academic accomplishments and funding history were not adequately documented to show she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to continue her scientific research on microfossils for environmental and paleoenvironmental assessments, including sea level forecasting and offshore mineral discovery.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s research has substantial merit and national importance, impacting the field of geology and environmental assessments.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The Petitioner did not establish that it would be beneficial to waive the labor certification requirements due to insufficient evidence of being well positioned to advance her research.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner provided documentation of her curriculum vitae, academic credentials, published articles, presented work, and letters of support. However, these did not sufficiently demonstrate a record of success or substantial positive interest in her work.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
No specific inconsistencies were noted in the proposed endeavor, but the Petitioner’s evidence did not adequately support her claims of being well positioned to advance her research.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Letters from academic and professional references discussed her research projects but lacked specific examples of implementation or substantial recognition in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed research endeavor, failing to meet the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
