Date of Decision: May 14, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Medical Science
Petitioner Information
Profession: Medical Scientist
Field: Medical Science
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Advanced Degree: The petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner’s proposed endeavor of conducting research on diseases and developing therapeutic methods has both substantial merit and national importance.
Criteria Not Met:
- Well Positioned to Advance: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue research and development of therapeutic methods with the application of specific therapies at the University of Texas, University of Florida, or at a research institute such as the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins Medical Center.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Director found that the petitioner’s research has substantial merit and national importance. The petitioner provided evidence of peer-reviewed scientific articles, citations, and letters of support that indicated his research contributions to the field. However, this was not sufficient to meet the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner provided documentation of his academic credentials, published articles, and letters of support from colleagues. However, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that he has a model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, or interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities. The letters of support were speculative and did not provide concrete evidence of the petitioner’s impact on the field or interest from U.S. institutions.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The petitioner did not provide adequate justification for waiving the labor certification process. The evidence was insufficient to prove the national interest in the petitioner’s contributions.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted peer-reviewed articles, letters of support, and information about his research. However, these were not sufficient to demonstrate his qualifications and the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the potential broader impact of his proposed endeavor. The motion to reconsider did not provide sufficient new arguments to establish errors in the prior decision.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Provided but not sufficiently detailed to support the claim of national importance
Business Plan: Not provided or summarized in the decision
Advisory Letter: Provided but not sufficiently detailed to support the claim of national importance
Other Supporting Documentation: Included peer-reviewed articles and letters of support, which were insufficient to establish the broader national importance of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not establish that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor or that it would be beneficial to waive the labor certification process. The motion to reconsider was dismissed due to insufficient new evidence and failure to demonstrate errors in the previous decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
