Date of Decision: August 4, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Mathematics Education
Petitioner Information
Profession: Mathematics Teacher
Field: Mathematics Education
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree Qualification: The Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Passion for Teaching: The Petitioner demonstrated a strong passion for teaching.
Criteria Not Met:
Waiver of Job Offer: The Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement would be in the national interest.
New Facts: The Petitioner did not present new facts relevant to the prior decision that had not been previously submitted.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to continue working as a mathematics teacher, emphasizing the importance of quality education in mathematics.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s work in mathematics education was recognized as having substantial merit. However, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the national importance of waiving the job offer requirement.
On Balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The evidence provided did not support the argument that waiving the labor certification requirements would benefit the United States. The Petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusions of law or fact in the previous decisions.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted documents dated 2021, which related to events that occurred in 2021. These documents could not establish eligibility as they were dated after the original filing in 2012. The submitted brief did not provide new facts or address the reasons for the prior dismissals.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner’s documentation did not address the prior decisions’ concerns, specifically the lack of identification of any erroneous conclusions of law or statements of fact in the Director’s decision.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
[Not provided]
Business Plan:
[Not provided]
Advisory Letter:
[Not provided]
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Documents submitted were dated 2021, which are not applicable for establishing eligibility for a 2012 petition.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not establish relevant new facts or identify errors in the prior decisions. The underlying petition remains denied.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
