Date of Decision: May 10, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Cardiology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician and Researcher
Field: Cardiology
Nationality: [Nationality]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit: The petitioner’s clinical work and research in cardiology have substantial merit, particularly his studies on heart conditions.
National Importance: The petitioner’s proposed research in cardiology is of national importance, as evidenced by multiple publications and presentations.
Criteria Not Met:
Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner did not demonstrate a record of success or progress in his field that rises to the level required. His research has not been shown to impact the broader medical community or clinical practices significantly.
Balancing Factors: The petitioner did not show that his contributions would outweigh the benefits of the labor certification process. There was no urgent national interest in his efforts.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue his clinical and research work in cardiology, focusing on understanding unique heart conditions and developing better diagnostic and treatment methods.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s research on heart conditions, such as systolic heart failure, has substantial merit. However, while his clinical work offers valuable contributions, it does not meet the national importance criterion without broader impact documentation.
Supporting Evidence:
Letters from physicians and professors highlighted the petitioner’s research contributions and the potential benefits to the healthcare system.
Evidence included published works, conference presentations, and reference letters discussing his medical training and research projects.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s clinical work, though valuable, did not demonstrate a broader impact on the field of cardiology or the healthcare industry, limiting its national importance.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Various letters from medical professionals supported the petitioner’s research contributions but lacked specific examples of broader impact or implementation in medical practice.
Business Plan: Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Advisory letters discussed the petitioner’s research findings but did not provide substantial evidence of significant positive discourse or changes in clinical practices.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Additional supporting documents included the petitioner’s curriculum vitae, medical credentials, and emails inviting him to publish and present his work. However, these did not establish eligibility at the time of filing.
Conclusion
The appeal was denied. The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions outweighed the benefits of the labor certification process, nor did he establish a record of success or national importance in his proposed endeavor.
