Date of Decision: May 19, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Neonatology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician and Researcher
Field: Neonatology
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree: The Petitioner holds the qualifications for an advanced degree professional in neonatology.
Criteria Not Met:
National Interest: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the national interest.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner, a physician and researcher specializing in neonatology, aimed to conduct research addressing illnesses afflicting premature infants in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs). The research focused on alleviating problems such as sepsis in newborns, parent and caregiver mental health issues, and lack of oxygen for newborns.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
Merit and Importance: The appeal review acknowledged the potential national importance of the Petitioner’s research in improving neonatal care, which could have broader implications for the healthcare system. However, the evidence provided did not fully establish the national importance.
Key Quotes: “The Petitioner’s proposed work as a neonatal researcher has substantial merit.”
Supporting Evidence:
Research Focus: The Petitioner’s research on neonatal sepsis, mental health issues of caregivers, and oxygen management for preterm infants was highlighted as having potential benefits for improving neonatal care.
Letters from Experts: Letters from physicians and professors of medicine discussed the potential benefits of the Petitioner’s research but did not provide specific examples of broader impact or implementation in other medical centers.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentary evidence of the broader impact of his clinical work and research. The lack of specific examples and broader implementation reduced the perceived national importance of his proposed endeavor.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Various letters supported the significance of the Petitioner’s research but lacked detailed evidence of broader impact and national importance.
Business Plan:
Not applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter:
Letters from medical professionals discussed the importance of the Petitioner’s research but did not provide concrete examples of its impact.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner provided additional documentation, such as published work and presentations, but the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the broader impact required for a national interest waiver.
Conclusion
The appeal was denied. The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the national interest, nor did the evidence meet the three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework.
