EB-2 NIW USCIS Appeal Review – Hydrogeologist – Hydrogeology APR142021_02B5203

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


Emmanuel Uwakwe
Emmanuel Uwakwe

I studied Electrical and Electronics Engineering and have a huge passion for tech related stuff :)

Articles: 1543

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *