Date of Decision: May 7, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Exceptional Ability in the Sciences
Petitioner Information
Profession: Managing Research and Development Technician
Field: Sciences
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Full-Time Experience: The petitioner provided evidence showing the beneficiary had over ten years of full-time experience in the relevant occupation.
- Recognition for Achievements: The beneficiary demonstrated significant contributions to the industry through numerous patents and recognitions from peers and organizations.
Criteria Not Met:
- Academic Record: The beneficiary did not present an academic record related to the area of exceptional ability, nor was it established that this criterion does not apply to the beneficiary’s occupation.
- License or Certification: There was no evidence that the beneficiary possessed any relevant licenses or certifications, and it was not demonstrated that these criteria do not apply to the occupation.
- Salary Above Prevailing Wage: The beneficiary’s compensation, although above the entry-level prevailing wage, was not sufficiently demonstrated to be significantly above the norm for the occupation.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The beneficiary was employed as a managing research and development technician for a company manufacturing and distributing recycled toner cartridges and inkjets. The petitioner claimed an exemption from the job offer requirement, asserting it was in the national interest.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The decision found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that the beneficiary’s work met the criteria for substantial merit and national importance. Specifically, the contributions to green technology, while valuable, were not demonstrated to rise to the level required for a national interest waiver.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted patents, publications, and letters from industry peers praising the beneficiary’s work. However, the AAO determined this evidence did not sufficiently establish exceptional ability.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The AAO noted inconsistencies and gaps in the evidence provided, particularly regarding the applicability of certain criteria and the level of remuneration.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Intent: Not provided.
- Business Plan: Not provided.
- Advisory Letter: Letters from industry peers and a patent attorney were provided, highlighting the beneficiary’s contributions and exceptional skills.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The decision was based on the petitioner’s failure to meet the regulatory criteria for exceptional ability and the national interest waiver. Specifically, the petitioner did not provide adequate evidence for several key criteria, including an academic record and significant remuneration.
