Date of Decision: March 30, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Petitioner Information
Profession: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon
Field: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Orthodontics, Dental Healthcare
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner demonstrated that her proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance. Her work in oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthodontics, and related dental healthcare areas was recognized as having significant implications for the field.
Criteria Not Met:
- Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show she was well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. Although she submitted documentation of her academic credentials and professional experience, these did not convincingly demonstrate her capacity to significantly influence or advance the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery.
- Beneficial to the United States to Waive the Requirements of the Labor Certification Process: The petitioner failed to show that, on balance, waiving the labor certification requirement would be beneficial to the United States. The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the national interest in her contributions.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue her work in oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthodontics, and related dental healthcare areas. Her goal was to contribute to these fields through her clinical practice and research.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor was recognized for its substantial merit and national importance due to its potential to address critical issues in dental healthcare. Her work has broader implications for the field, as it is disseminated through clinical practice and academic contributions.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The petitioner argued that her work would contribute to the United States by enhancing the body of knowledge in oral and maxillofacial surgery. However, she did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that her contributions would justify waiving the labor certification process.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted her curriculum vitae, academic credentials, professional experience letters, and expert opinion letters. However, these documents did not adequately demonstrate her ability to significantly impact her field. The letters from colleagues and professionals praised her work but did not provide concrete examples of her research or clinical practice having a substantial influence.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s assertions about her influence and impact were not fully supported by the evidence provided. The documentation did not clearly show that her work had been widely adopted or recognized in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not provided or summarized in the decision.
Advisory Letter:
Provided but not sufficiently detailed to support the claim of national importance.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included letters from colleagues and professionals, which praised her work but did not adequately demonstrate her significant impact in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was remanded.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the criteria for demonstrating that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor or that waiving the labor certification requirement would be beneficial to the United States. The evidence provided was insufficient to support her claims of substantial impact and national importance.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
