Date of Decision: March 12, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Education Research
Petitioner Information
Profession: Mathematics Teacher and Education Researcher
Field: Mathematics Education
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s work focuses on improving STEM education in the United States, particularly in mathematics. She has established a collaborative network aimed at enhancing STEM skills through research-based practices.
Professional Qualifications:
The petitioner holds a Ph.D. in teaching, learning, and culture, and has conducted research published in academic journals and presented at conferences.
Criteria Not Met:
Positioned to Advance Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner failed to demonstrate a significant impact or recognition in her field. While she has published and presented her work, there is insufficient evidence of its broader implementation or influence.
Benefit to the United States:
The petitioner did not sufficiently establish that waiving the job offer requirement would provide a substantial benefit to the U.S. She did not show that her work had generated significant interest or adoption within the academic community.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor involves continuing her work as a mathematics teacher and conducting research to improve STEM education. She aims to address the STEM skills gap in the U.S. by creating a network of professionals to share best practices.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s research is aimed at improving the quality of STEM education in the U.S., which is a priority for the U.S. Department of Education. Her work has the potential to impact educational policies and practices, thereby contributing to national educational goals.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted letters of support from colleagues and industry professionals, emphasizing the potential benefits of her research to the U.S. education system. She also provided documentation of her academic credentials, professional memberships, and published works.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
While the petitioner’s research shows promise, there was a lack of concrete evidence demonstrating its broad adoption or significant impact on the field of mathematics education.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The petitioner included letters from colleagues and educational professionals highlighting the potential impact of her work on STEM education. These letters supported her claims regarding the national importance of her research.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letters:
Several advisory letters were provided, emphasizing the innovative nature of the petitioner’s research and its potential benefits for educational practices.
Any other supporting documentation:
The petitioner provided evidence of her published articles and conference presentations, which reflect her ongoing commitment to her field.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was dismissed due to the petitioner not meeting all three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. Although her research has substantial merit, she did not sufficiently demonstrate her ability to advance her proposed endeavor or the significant benefit to the U.S. of waiving the job offer requirement.
Reasoning:
The petitioner’s lack of a significant record of success and broader impact within her field led to the conclusion that she is not well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. Additionally, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the United States.
