EB-2 NIW USCIS Appeal Review – Medical Researcher and Psychiatrist – JUN282017_02B5203

Date of Decision: June 28, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Medical Research and Psychiatry

Petitioner Information

Profession: Medical Researcher and Psychiatrist

Field: Psychiatry

Nationality: Not specified

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied

Appeal Outcome: Denied

Evidentiary Criteria Analysis

Criteria Met:

Advanced Degree: The petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

Criteria Not Met:

Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner did not provide sufficient details to demonstrate the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed endeavor.

Well Positioned to Advance Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.

Beneficial to Waive Job Offer Requirement: The petitioner did not demonstrate that waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the United States.

Key Points from the Decision

Proposed Endeavor:

The petitioner proposed to establish a psychiatric clinic and mental health education center where she could share her knowledge and experience with other medical professionals and patients.

Substantial Merit and National Importance:

The petitioner did not provide sufficient details about the size, location, and staffing of the proposed clinic, nor information about the population she aims to serve or the topics she intends to research.

Key Quote: “Without additional information and evidence, the Petitioner has not established the implications of her proposed endeavor or its potential prospective impact on the United States.”

Supporting Evidence:

The petitioner provided her resume, documentation of attendance at conferences and seminars, professional memberships, and medical training credentials, as well as treatment protocols and records.

Key Quote: “She has not explained whether she developed these treatments, the extent to which they have been used by other interested parties, or otherwise described how they show a record of success in her field or interest in her work from relevant parties.”

Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:

The petitioner did not provide evidence demonstrating a history of success in similar entrepreneurial endeavors or showing the interest of relevant parties in her proposal.

Supporting Documentation

Letters of Intent: Not applicable

Business Plan: Not applicable

Advisory Letter: Not applicable

Any Other Supporting Documentation:

The petitioner submitted reference letters discussing her work, but they did not provide sufficient detail to explain how her work renders her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.

Reasoning: The petitioner did not respond to the RFE seeking evidence to establish eligibility and did not meet the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. The petitioner did not establish eligibility for or otherwise merit a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.

Download The Full Petition Review Here

Gabriel
Gabriel

Programmer. Author. Python

Articles: 251

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *