Date of Decision: March 14, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Medicine
Petitioner Information
Profession: Pediatrician
Field: Medicine
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Education and Qualifications: The petitioner’s qualifications as a pediatrician with a foreign medical degree, equivalent to a first professional degree in medicine in the U.S., were recognized.
Criteria Not Met:
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petition failed to provide a detailed, compelling description of the proposed endeavor beyond general statements. It lacked specific details on how her work as a pediatrician would have national importance.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner intends to work as a pediatrician in the U.S., mentioning plans like participating in an “observership,” starting a research fellowship, and opening a pediatric medical office.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner failed to demonstrate the national importance of her endeavor, with the proposal lacking detailed descriptions and justifications of how her work impacts national healthcare on a significant scale.
Supporting Evidence:
Documents included a “Professional Business Plan,” letters of recommendation, and an abstract published in a medical journal. However, these failed to substantiate the claimed national importance of her proposed endeavors.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The proposed plans for research and opening a medical office were noted as insufficiently detailed, lacking specific focus and actionable steps that align with the claimed national importance.
Supporting Documentation
Professional Business Plan:
Outlined broad goals without specific actionable details or clear impacts.
Letters of Intent:
General intentions with no specific commitments or detailed plans.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not provide sufficient detailed evidence or a compelling argument to justify the national importance of her endeavor in the U.S. healthcare system.
