Date of Decision: August 11, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Physical Therapy
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physical Therapist
Field: Physical Therapy
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Advanced Degree Qualification: The Director did not make a final determination on whether the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, which is necessary for second preference classification.
Criteria Not Met:
- Dhanasar Analysis: The Director conducted a Dhanasar analysis to determine eligibility for a national interest waiver without first concluding whether the petitioner qualifies for the second preference classification.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner, a physical therapist, sought to provide specialized physical therapy services and contribute to the advancement of rehabilitation techniques in the United States. The petitioner’s work focuses on improving patient outcomes and advancing the field of physical therapy through innovative treatment methods and research.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Director’s decision did not establish whether the petitioner’s proposed endeavor meets the criteria for national importance. While the petitioner’s work in physical therapy has substantial merit, the Director did not provide sufficient analysis or evidence to determine its broader impact on the U.S. healthcare system or the field of physical therapy at a national level.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The Director did not adequately address whether the petitioner’s work would benefit the United States to such an extent that waiving the labor certification process would be justified. The petitioner argued that her work would enhance healthcare delivery and patient rehabilitation, but the Director’s decision lacked sufficient evidence and analysis to support these claims.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted various documents, including academic records, professional certifications, and letters of support from colleagues and industry professionals. However, these documents did not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner’s specific endeavor would have a significant national impact or that she met the requirements for second preference classification.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Director’s decision noted inconsistencies in the evaluation process, particularly regarding the petitioner’s qualification for the requested second preference classification and the Dhanasar analysis conducted without a final determination on the advanced degree qualification.
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 national importance of the petitioner’s work.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The petitioner provided letters from colleagues and an expert opinion letter, but these did not adequately demonstrate recognition for significant contributions to the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was remanded.
Reasoning: The Director’s decision was insufficient for review due to a lack of final determination on the petitioner’s qualification for second preference classification. The matter was remanded for the Director to conduct a final merits determination of the advanced degree issue and enter a new decision. The Director may request additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination and any other issues.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
