Date of Decision: April 30, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Cardiology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician
Field: Cardiology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Summarily dismissed
Motion to Reopen: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree Professional: The Petitioner provided evidence demonstrating she qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Substantial Merit and National Importance: The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner’s cardiology research had substantial merit and national importance, satisfying the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Criteria Not Met:
Well-Positioned to Advance the Endeavor: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor in cardiology research.
Balance of Benefit to the United States: The Petitioner did not establish that waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the United States.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner, a cardiologist, intends to continue her clinical and research work aimed at treating and understanding heart disease. Her work involves clinical duties, conducting research, and presenting findings at medical conferences.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Director found that the Petitioner’s proposed cardiology research had substantial merit and national importance, as the results of her research could benefit the broader medical community through dissemination in medical journals and conferences.
Supporting Evidence:
Initial Submission: Included a cover letter detailing the Petitioner’s intentions, curriculum vitae, academic credentials, medical certifications, published articles, conference presentations, and certificates of appreciation.
Further Submission on Motion to Reopen: Provided additional certificates of appreciation, a letter from a professor discussing her clinical work and research presentations, and recent publications and presentations.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The primary inconsistency was the lack of detailed evidence demonstrating the broader impact and success of the Petitioner’s research. The evidence did not sufficiently show that her work had been frequently cited, influenced clinical practice, or generated substantial positive discourse in the medical community.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable in this case.
Business Plan:
Not applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter:
Provided by a professor of medicine, discussing the Petitioner’s clinical work and research presentations but lacking specific details on the significance of her research findings.
Any other supporting documentation:
Certificates of Appreciation: Recognized the Petitioner’s service and achievements in her field.
Medical Certifications: Verified the Petitioner’s qualifications and expertise in cardiology.
Recent Publications and Presentations: Showcased the Petitioner’s ongoing contributions to cardiology research but were insufficient to meet the required criteria.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was denied.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. While the Petitioner’s cardiology research was found to have substantial merit and national importance, she did not demonstrate that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor or that waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the United States. The evidence provided in the motion to reopen did not overcome the grounds for the previous decision summarily dismissing her appeal. As a result, the Petitioner did not satisfy the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework necessary to qualify for a national interest waiver.
