Date of Decision: May 26, 2021
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: Physician and Surgeon
Field: Medicine
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Advanced Degree: The petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criteria Not Met:
- National Importance: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has national importance.
- Well-Positioned to Advance: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to conduct medical research, practice clinical medicine, and pursue a faculty position in general surgery. Her stated goals included attaining licensure and board certification in surgery, undertaking a research fellowship, practicing as a surgeon in a large hospital, and acquiring a faculty position as an assistant professor of general surgery.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the petitioner’s proposed work in medicine has substantial merit, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor. The petitioner did not provide detailed information about the research she intended to undertake, nor did she demonstrate how her clinical practice would have a significant national impact. The general importance of medical research and clinical practice does not establish the national importance of one individual’s work.
Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner provided documentation of her academic credentials, professional experience, and letters of support. However, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. The letters of support primarily emphasized her clinical work rather than her research expertise. The petitioner’s experience as a physician and surgeon did not adequately establish her ability to conduct impactful medical research or secure a faculty position.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The petitioner did not provide adequate justification for waiving the labor certification process. The evidence was insufficient to prove the national interest in the petitioner’s contributions. The argument that there is a shortage of physicians and medical researchers in the United States was not persuasive, as there are separate waiver provisions for physicians working in designated shortage areas.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted letters of support, documentation of her professional experience, and references to her clinical work. However, these were not sufficient to demonstrate her qualifications and the national importance of her proposed endeavor.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the potential broader impact of her proposed endeavor. The motion to reconsider did not provide sufficient new arguments to establish errors in the prior decision.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Provided but not sufficiently detailed to support the claim of national importance
Business Plan: Not provided or summarized in the decision
Advisory Letter: Provided but not sufficiently detailed to support the claim of national importance
Other Supporting Documentation: Included letters of support and documentation of professional experience, which were insufficient to establish the broader national importance of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance or that it would be beneficial to waive the labor certification process. The motion to reconsider was dismissed due to insufficient new evidence and failure to demonstrate errors in the previous decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
