Date of Decision: April 22, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Ophthalmology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Ophthalmology Researcher
Field: Pediatric Ophthalmology
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Intrinsic Merit: The petitioner’s work in ophthalmology, particularly in preventing and treating Diabetic Retinopathy, is recognized as having substantial intrinsic merit.
National Scope: The benefits of the petitioner’s research are national in scope, addressing significant public health issues in ophthalmology.
Criteria Not Met:
Greater Degree than an Available U.S. Worker: The petitioner did not demonstrate that his contributions are of such significance that they benefit the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications.
Influence on the Field: The evidence provided did not sufficiently show that the petitioner’s work has influenced the field as a whole or led to widespread implementation.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to conduct collaborative research in pediatric ophthalmology focusing on preventing and treating Diabetic Retinopathy at a pediatric clinic in California.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The research on ophthalmic complications in diabetic patients has substantial merit and addresses a significant health concern with potential national benefits. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s past achievements justify future national benefit projections.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted reference letters, documentation of two patents, publications, conference presentations, and medical training credentials. However, the evidence lacked independent citations and examples showing significant impact or influence on the field of ophthalmology.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The primary inconsistency noted was the lack of substantial evidence showing that the petitioner’s work had been implemented broadly or recognized as significantly influential in the field.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
- Not provided in the evidence submitted.
Business Plan:
- Not provided in the evidence submitted.
Advisory Letter:
- Reference letters from several professionals in the field were submitted, praising the petitioner’s work but lacking specific examples of broad implementation or significant impact.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
- Documentation of two patents, publications, and conference presentations were provided, but without sufficient evidence of independent citations or widespread adoption.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that his work in ophthalmology met the criteria for the EB-2 NIW, particularly in demonstrating influence on the field or national benefit greater than that of an available U.S. worker.
