Date of Decision: January 9, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Pathology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Pathologist
Field: Cytopathology and Genitourinary Pathology
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Substantial intrinsic merit in the field of pathology, particularly in cytopathology and genitourinary pathology.
Criterion 2: National scope of benefit through research and clinical practice impacting pathology across the country.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Insufficient evidence of past achievements significantly above that encountered in the field.
Criterion 2: Lack of substantial proof of the petitioner’s work influencing the field on a national level.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner aimed to combine clinical practice and research in cytopathology and genitourinary pathology, asserting that his work provides novel insights into diagnosis and treatment in these areas.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s work was recognized for its potential to advance the pathology field, but the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate a national level impact or extraordinary merit beyond standard professional contributions.
Supporting Evidence:
Letters of Intent: Provided letters from colleagues and professors praising the petitioner’s work but lacking detailed evidence of national significance.
Research Publications: Included journal articles and conference presentations without clear demonstration of their impact on the field.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s claim of combining clinical practice and research was not substantiated with sufficient evidence of past achievements or a clear pathway for future contributions of significant national interest.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Statements from colleagues and supervisors highlighted the petitioner’s skills and potential but lacked concrete evidence of his work’s impact on the national level.
Business Plan: Not Applicable
Advisory Letter:
Letters emphasized the petitioner’s clinical and research capabilities but did not convincingly establish a national interest waiver’s necessity.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of past achievements or a clear future benefit to the national interest that would justify waiving the job offer requirement.
