Date of Decision: December 4, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Hematology and Oncology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician
Field: Hematology and Oncology
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Intrinsic Merit: The petitioner’s work in hematology and oncology was recognized as having significant intrinsic merit.
- National Scope: The benefits of the petitioner’s research and proposed endeavors were considered to be national in scope.
Criteria Not Met:
- Greater Benefit than U.S. Workers: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that their contributions in the field would surpass those of an available U.S. worker with the same qualifications.
- Influence on the Field: The petitioner’s achievements did not show a sufficient influence on the field of hematology and oncology to justify a waiver of the job offer requirement.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner focused on research related to the incidence and prognosis of solid tumors in HIV patients and a placebo-controlled trial studying the efficacy and safety of treatment for acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the petitioner’s work was acknowledged for its importance, the provided documentation failed to establish the petitioner’s significant influence on the field. Reference letters did not sufficiently explain the petitioner’s role or the impact of their work on national medical practices.
Supporting Evidence:
- Peer Review and Publications: The petitioner’s role as a peer reviewer and their publications, though notable, did not demonstrate a substantial influence on the field.
- Reference Letters: Several letters highlighted the petitioner’s research and clinical skills, but lacked specific examples of how their work had impacted the field broadly.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
- Lack of Specific Impact Evidence: Although the petitioner’s work was valuable, the evidence did not show widespread influence or citation by independent researchers.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Letters indicated support for the petitioner’s work but lacked detailed evidence of its national impact.
Business Plan:
Not applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter:
Letters from peers and professionals highlighted the petitioner’s contributions but failed to demonstrate a significant, field-wide impact.
Other Supporting Documentation:
General assertions in the reference letters were considered unsubstantiated without concrete examples of influence on national practices.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed due to insufficient evidence that the petitioner’s contributions to the field of hematology and oncology surpassed those of an available U.S. worker with similar qualifications.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not demonstrate a sufficient level of influence on the field to warrant a national interest waiver. The lack of detailed evidence and specific examples of the petitioner’s impact led to the conclusion that their achievements did not justify an exemption from the job offer requirement.
