Date of Decision: August 21, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Geophysics
Petitioner Information
Profession: Geophysicist
Field: Geophysics
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree Qualification: The Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Substantial Merit: The Petitioner’s work in geophysical data processing and interpretation is recognized as having substantial merit.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has national importance.
Specific Contributions: The evidence provided did not adequately show how the Petitioner’s work would extend beyond individual clients to have a broader impact.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner, a geophysicist, sought to continue his consulting work with a focus on geophysical data processing, analysis, modeling, and optimization. He also proposed to join a geophysics laboratory as a full-time researcher in the future.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s work involves significant technical contributions to the oil and gas industry. However, the evidence did not demonstrate the broader impact necessary to establish national importance. The work described was primarily client-specific and lacked the prospective impact required under the Dhanasar framework.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, which focuses on the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Consequently, further analysis under the second and third prongs was unnecessary.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted letters, job offers, and email communications to support his claims. However, the evidence was insufficient to establish the national importance of his proposed work. Specific projects mentioned, such as geophysical data processing for the oil and gas industry and participation in research projects, lacked detailed evidence of national impact.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were no significant inconsistencies noted in the proposed endeavor. The primary issue was the lack of evidence demonstrating the national importance of the Petitioner’s work.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The Petitioner provided a letter from a principal consultant detailing his current job duties and an offer letter for a future research position. These documents supported the substantial merit of his work but did not establish national importance.
Business Plan:
No specific business plan was summarized in the decision.
Advisory Letter:
No specific advisory letters were summarized in the decision.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner mentioned involvement in significant research projects and provided related emails and proposals. However, the documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of his contributions.
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 his proposed work. Without establishing this key criterion, the Petitioner did not qualify for a national interest waiver.
