Date of Decision: April 14, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Hydrogeology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Hydrogeologist
Field: Hydrogeology
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- None: The Director’s decision did not explicitly acknowledge any criteria met by the petitioner due to an incomplete analysis.
Criteria Not Met:
- Advanced Degree Classification: The Director did not make a final determination on whether the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
- National Interest Waiver: The Director conducted a Dhanasar analysis without first concluding the petitioner’s eligibility for the advanced degree classification.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner, a hydrogeologist, seeks to advance hydrogeology through research, fieldwork, and the application of expertise in water resource management and environmental protection.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The decision did not provide a detailed analysis of how the petitioner’s work in hydrogeology holds substantial merit and national importance due to the incomplete review process.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner’s evidence was not fully evaluated because the Director did not initially determine if the petitioner qualified for the advanced degree classification, which is a prerequisite for the national interest waiver.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The primary inconsistency noted was procedural, as the Director failed to make a crucial determination regarding the petitioner’s qualification for the advanced degree classification before evaluating the national interest waiver criteria.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not provided or summarized in the decision.
Advisory Letter:
Not provided or summarized in the decision.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The record included documentation supporting the petitioner’s expertise and contributions to hydrogeology, but these were not thoroughly analyzed in the Director’s initial decision.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was remanded.
Reasoning: The Director’s decision was based on an incomplete analysis, as it did not establish whether the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree before conducting the Dhanasar analysis. The case was remanded for further proceedings and a complete review.
Download the Full Petition Review Here