Date of Decision: March 20, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Mechanical Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Mechanical Engineer
Field: Mechanical Engineering
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Qualification for Advanced Degree Professional:
The petitioner holds an advanced degree in mechanical engineering, fulfilling the first criterion for EB-2 classification.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s work in mechanical engineering was initially recognized for its significant potential impact on the U.S. economy and technological advancement.
Criteria Not Met:
Positioned to Advance Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed work. Evidence provided did not clearly show a strong track record of success or significant impact in the field.
Benefit to the United States:
The petitioner failed to adequately establish that waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the U.S. The evidence did not clearly demonstrate that his contributions would significantly outweigh those of available U.S. workers.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner intends to continue his work as a mechanical engineer, focusing on innovative projects that could enhance industrial efficiency and technological development in the U.S.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed work has substantial merit in improving mechanical engineering practices and contributing to advancements in the field. This work has potential national importance due to its implications for industrial growth and technological innovation.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided a detailed resume, academic credentials, and letters of support from colleagues and industry experts. These documents highlighted his achievements and potential contributions to mechanical engineering.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
Despite the promising nature of the petitioner’s work, there were inconsistencies and gaps in the evidence regarding its broader implementation and impact. The petitioner’s claims about his potential contributions were not fully substantiated by the documentation provided.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The petitioner included letters from colleagues and industry professionals emphasizing the potential impact of his work on mechanical engineering and related fields. These letters supported his claims regarding the national importance of his research and projects.
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 industrial practices.
Any other supporting documentation:
The petitioner provided evidence of his published articles and conference presentations, which reflect his ongoing commitment to his field.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was remanded for further review. The Director is to re-evaluate the petition under the framework that was in place at the time of the initial approval, considering whether the petitioner met the criteria for a national interest waiver.
Reasoning:
The Director initially revoked the petition based on the new Dhanasar framework. However, the appeal review determined that the petition should be re-evaluated under the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) framework that was applicable when the petition was approved. The petitioner’s failure to demonstrate sufficient evidence of being well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and the substantial benefit to the U.S. were key reasons for the remand.
