Date of Decision: May 10, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Materials Chemistry
Petitioner Information
Profession: Materials Chemistry Researcher
Field: Materials Chemistry
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved
Revocation Decision: Revoked
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Merit: The petitioner demonstrated the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor, involving materials chemistry with applications in energy and water remediation.
Criteria Not Met:
- Well Positioned to Advance: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
- Beneficial Waiver: The petitioner did not sufficiently prove that waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the United States.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue his research in materials chemistry, focusing on developing smart polymers for water remediation and energy applications.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed research was recognized for its substantial merit and potential impact in the field. The dissemination of research findings through scientific journals and conferences supported this recognition.
Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner provided documentation of his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, published articles, peer review activity, and letters of support. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that his research had a significant impact on the field or that he was well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. The petitioner’s citation record, while notable, did not meet the requirements to show substantial interest and impact in his field. Additionally, peer review activity and other professional achievements did not conclusively demonstrate a record of success or progress.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The petitioner did not provide adequate justification for waiving the labor certification process. The evidence was insufficient to prove the national interest in the petitioner’s contributions.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted additional documentation, including a business plan, advisory evaluation letters, and reports on his research activities. However, these were not sufficient to demonstrate his qualifications and the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s evidence did not align with the requirements to show he was well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. The motion to reconsider did not provide sufficient new arguments to establish errors in the prior decision.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Provided but not sufficiently detailed to support the claim of national importance
Business Plan: Not provided or summarized in the decision
Advisory Letter: Provided but not sufficiently detailed to support the claim of national importance
Other Supporting Documentation: Included additional documentation on the petitioner’s research activities, which were insufficient to establish the broader national importance of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not establish that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor or that it would be beneficial to waive the labor certification process. The motion to reconsider was dismissed due to insufficient new evidence and failure to demonstrate errors in the previous decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
