Date of Decision: August 4, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Nephrology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Nephrology Fellow
Field: Nephrology
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree Professional: The Petitioner established her eligibility as an advanced degree professional.
Area of Substantial Intrinsic Merit: The Petitioner’s work in nephrology was recognized as being in an area of substantial intrinsic merit.
Criteria Not Met:
Influence in the Field: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate her influence in the field of nephrology.
National Impact: The evidence provided did not show that her contributions had a significant national impact.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner sought to continue her work as a clinical and research physician specializing in nephrology, focusing on areas such as telemedicine for veterans and desensitization protocols for renal transplants.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Director acknowledged the substantial merit and national importance of the Petitioner’s work in nephrology, particularly in improving treatments for renal conditions.
However, the evidence did not demonstrate a sufficient level of influence on the field to meet the criteria for a national interest waiver.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner provided letters, scholarly articles, conference presentations, citations, and letters of appreciation for reviewing manuscripts.
These documents highlighted her contributions but did not sufficiently prove their influence beyond her immediate circle or their national impact.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The evidence did not corroborate claims of national influence or significant impact on the field of nephrology. There was a lack of independent verification or examples of other institutions adopting her findings or methods.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The Petitioner submitted reference letters describing her research contributions and their potential impact, but they lacked specific evidence of significant national influence.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Not applicable.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner included letters from colleagues and independent practitioners, but these did not provide concrete examples of the broader application or influence of her work.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that her achievements had a significant impact on her field or that her contributions were of national importance.
Reasoning: The decision was based on the lack of substantial evidence showing that the Petitioner’s work had influenced the field of nephrology beyond her immediate employment .
