Date of Decision: January 12, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Nursing
Petitioner Information
Profession: Nurse
Field: Nursing and Nursing Education
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner proposed to care for patients as a registered nurse and teach academic courses as a nursing instructor, which has substantial merit. However, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that these activities would impact the nursing field or the U.S. healthcare industry more broadly.
Criteria Not Met:
Impact on National Importance:
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her work would extend beyond her immediate patients, students, and workplaces to have a broader national impact. The letters of recommendation and other supporting documents did not provide persuasive detail on how her proposed work would meet this criterion.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to provide patient care as a registered nurse and teach nursing courses. She also mentioned prior academic research on nursing home patient falls with major injuries (FMI), but provided no specific evidence or detailed plans for continued research.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the petitioner’s work as a nurse and instructor has substantial merit, she did not sufficiently prove that her endeavors would have national importance. The evidence presented did not convincingly show that her work would significantly impact the field of nursing or address the national nursing shortage.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The petitioner did not demonstrate how waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States on a national level. The impact of her work was deemed to be limited to her immediate professional environment.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided letters of recommendation and evidence of her qualifications and past success as a nurse. However, these documents did not establish the broader impact necessary to meet the national importance criterion.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner did not clarify how much time she would dedicate to each aspect of her proposed endeavor, such as patient care, teaching, and research. Additionally, there was no specific evidence provided to support claims about the national significance of her work.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not specifically mentioned in the document.
Business Plan:
Not specifically mentioned in the document.
Advisory Letter:
Letters of recommendation from professional acquaintances were provided, but they lacked persuasive detail regarding the national impact of the petitioner’s work.
Any other supporting documentation:
The document mentioned prior academic research but did not provide sufficient details or evidence of how it would be continued or expanded.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
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. The evidence provided did not establish that the petitioner’s work would have a significant broader impact beyond her immediate professional environment.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may need to provide more detailed and specific evidence to demonstrate the broader national impact of her work in future petitions or appeals. This could include more comprehensive data on how her work addresses national issues in nursing and healthcare, and how it benefits the United States on a larger scale.
