Date of Decision: March 9, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Medicinal Chemistry
Petitioner Information
Profession: Postdoctoral Research Associate
Field: Chemical Biology and Medicinal Chemistry
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree: The Petitioner holds a Ph.D. in Chemistry from [University], establishing him as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The Director’s decision did not render a determination as to whether the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement.
Well Positioned: The Director’s decision did not include a sufficient analysis of the content of the letters or a proper discussion of the deficiencies in the remaining evidence.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner specializes in the field of medicinal chemistry, responsible for the development of chemical probes and synthesis of small molecule inhibitors for understudied protein kinases.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Director did not render a determination on whether the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, particularly the “potential prospective impact” of his work.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The Director did not sufficiently evaluate the Petitioner’s arguments and evidence in determining whether, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements.
Supporting Evidence
The Petitioner provided evidence of his education, position, research experience, recommendation letters, citation record, journal ranking and impact factor, and research funding. However, the Director did not include a sufficient analysis of this evidence.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not provide evidence showing that his contribution was a factor in receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the evidence provided did not list the Petitioner’s name as a recipient of grants.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The Director’s decision did not sufficiently address the content of the recommendation letters provided by the Petitioner.
Conclusion
The appeal was remanded for the Director to properly apply all three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework and to provide a new decision consistent with the analysis.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
