Date of Decision: May 10, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS)
Petitioner Information
Profession: MEMS Researcher
Field: Microelectromechanical Systems
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved
Revocation Decision: Revoked
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Merit: The petitioner demonstrated the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor, involving the design, fabrication, and optimization of MEMS devices.
Criteria Not Met:
- Well Positioned to Advance: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
- Beneficial Waiver: The petitioner did not sufficiently prove that waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the United States.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue his work involving the design, fabrication, characterization, and optimization of MEMS devices aimed at developing next-generation MEMS technologies. His work focused on improving MEMS device performance for applications such as high-speed operation in telecommunications, consumer electronics, transportation, building automation, and healthcare.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed research was recognized for its substantial merit and potential impact in the field. Letters of support and corroborating evidence from various sources indicated that his research in MEMS technologies has significant implications for national security and industry advancements. However, the Director concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate the potential prospective impact of the petitioner’s endeavor.
Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner provided documentation of his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, published articles, conference presentations, and letters of support discussing his graduate and postdoctoral research. Despite this, the Director determined that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. The citation record, commercialization efforts, and peer review activities did not meet the requirements to show substantial interest and impact in his field. The evidence provided did not adequately demonstrate the petitioner’s achievements and the significance of his contributions to the MEMS field.
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 letters of support, information about MEMS technology advantages, documentation of his research activities, and citation records. 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 align with the requirements to show he was well positioned to advance 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 additional documentation on the petitioner’s research activities, 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
