Date of Decision: June 28, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Materials Science
Petitioner Information
Profession: Materials Scientist
Field: Energy Engineering, Surface Chemistry, Colloidal Chemistry, Electrochemistry
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner demonstrated that his proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance. His work in surface chemistry, colloidal chemistry, and electrochemistry was acknowledged to have significant implications for the fields of data storage devices such as flash drives and memory cards.
Criteria Not Met:
- Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show he was well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Despite having published scholarly articles and receiving citations, the evidence did not convincingly demonstrate his capacity to significantly impact the fields of materials science.
- Beneficial to the United States to Waive the Requirements of the Labor Certification Process: The director did not reach a determination on this prong, thus leaving it undetermined whether waiving the labor certification requirement would be beneficial to the United States.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue his work on chemical processes for manufacturing and various fundamental principles including surface chemistry, colloidal chemistry, and electrochemistry.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor was recognized for its substantial merit and national importance due to its potential to advance technology in data storage devices. His research was disseminated through scientific publications and cited in the field.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The petitioner argued that his work would contribute to the United States by advancing the body of knowledge in materials science. However, the director did not provide a conclusion on this prong.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, published articles, and letters of support. The director noted that while the petitioner’s publications received citations, the comparative ranking of citation rates did not demonstrate a significant impact.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s assertions about his influence and impact were not fully supported by the evidence provided. The documentation did not clearly show that his work had been widely adopted or recognized in the field of materials science.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not provided or summarized in the decision.
Advisory Letter:
Provided but did not sufficiently detail to support the claim of national importance.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included letters from colleagues and professionals, which praised his work but did not adequately demonstrate his significant impact in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was remanded.
Reasoning: The director did not adequately explain how the evidence in the record led to the conclusion regarding the petitioner’s ability to advance his proposed endeavor. A more detailed explanation and consideration of the third prong are necessary for a final determination.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
