Date of Decision: May 25, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Educational Leadership and Learning Support
Petitioner Information
Profession: Learning Specialist
Field: Educational Leadership and Learning Support
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree: The Petitioner holds a Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Educational Leadership, qualifying as an advanced degree professional.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance.
Well-Positioned to Advance the Endeavor: The evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
Waiver Benefit: The Petitioner did not demonstrate that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to work as a learning specialist, focusing on developing programs to improve student retention and success in higher education. This includes creating a retention program for undergraduate and graduate students and conducting research on retention strategies.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The decision acknowledged the merit of the proposed endeavor but found that it did not rise to the level of national importance. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that her work would have a significant impact on the broader field of education or address a substantial national issue.
Quotes and References: The decision noted that the Petitioner’s proposed retention program lacked detail and did not provide specific evidence on how it would impact the field of higher education at a national level.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted letters of support, a journal article, a business plan, and other documents. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the broader implications or significant potential impact of the proposed endeavor.
Quotes and References: The letters of support described the Petitioner’s work in educational leadership and student advising but did not provide detailed information on the national importance of her proposed endeavor.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The decision found that the Petitioner’s documentation lacked detail and specificity regarding her proposed retention program and its potential impact.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
N/A
Business Plan:
The Petitioner’s business plan outlined her goals and strategies but lacked detailed support for its projections and did not demonstrate how the proposed endeavor would have national importance.
Advisory Letter:
N/A
Any other supporting documentation:
The Petitioner provided additional documents, including job postings for learning specialist positions and remarks by former President Barack Obama on higher education, but these were insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner did not meet the criteria required for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has national importance, that she is well-positioned to advance the endeavor, or that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. The evidence provided did not adequately support the claims made regarding the impact of the proposed retention program or show significant potential for broader impact beyond the Petitioner’s immediate work.
