Date of Decision: August 21, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Metallurgical Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Metallurgical Engineer
Field: Metallurgical Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
The petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
The petitioner demonstrated her past experience and qualifications in metallurgical engineering.
Criteria Not Met:
The petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has implications beyond her company and its customers to a level that supports national importance.
The petitioner did not demonstrate that her work would have a broader impact on the metallurgical engineering field or the steel and wire industry.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue her work as a metallurgical engineer for a company, focusing on performing metallurgic and mechanical laboratory analyses, evaluating materials, designing a new galvanizing plant, and conducting fracture mechanics and failure analysis.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s work was found to have substantial merit as it supports her company’s production protocols and manufacturing methods. However, it was not demonstrated that her work has broader implications for the metallurgical engineering field or the steel and wire industry at a national level.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted a letter from her employer, a detailed description of her duties, evidence of her graduate research work, reference letters from colleagues, and documentation of her past work experience.
The petitioner’s employer indicated that her contributions positively impact various industries served by the company, but did not provide sufficient details to demonstrate national importance.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were no major inconsistencies in the proposed endeavor, but the petitioner’s work was not shown to have a broader impact on the field of metallurgical engineering or on national interests as required by the Dhanasar framework.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not specified in the document.
Business Plan:
Not specified in the document.
Advisory Letter:
Not specified in the document.
Any other supporting documentation:
Graduate research articles, recommendation letters, and employer letters discussing her qualifications and work contributions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, which requires demonstrating that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. While the petitioner’s qualifications and past experience were well documented, the evidence did not establish that her work would have a broader impact on the metallurgical engineering field or significantly benefit national interests. As such, the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements for a national interest waiver, and the appeal was dismissed.
