Date of Decision: December 23, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician
Field: Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine
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 pulmonary and critical care medicine, particularly his research on respiratory diseases, was deemed to have substantial intrinsic merit.
- National Scope: The petitioner’s medical research was found to have benefits of national scope as the results were disseminated to other practitioners through conferences and journals.
Criteria Not Met:
- Demonstrable Past Influence: The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that his research had already influenced clinical treatments or had a widespread impact in his field.
- Prospective National Benefit: The evidence did not establish that the petitioner’s future work would serve the national interest to a greater degree than an available U.S. worker with similar qualifications.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue his work in clinical treatment, medical research, and teaching, focusing on respiratory diseases.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The AAO acknowledged that the petitioner’s medical research had substantial merit and was of national importance, particularly due to its potential to improve the treatment of respiratory diseases. However, the decision emphasized that the potential for future impact without demonstrable past achievements was insufficient to meet the national interest waiver requirements.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided evidence of his professional credentials, research activities, peer review services, and several letters from supervisors and independent professionals praising his clinical expertise and research contributions. Notably, he had authored six articles and presented his work at conferences, but his research had been cited only once at the time of filing.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The decision noted inconsistencies between the petitioner’s claimed national impact and the evidence of his work’s actual influence. Despite assertions of national benefit, the petitioner’s research was not shown to have been widely implemented in clinical settings.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Letters from current and former supervisors and professionals in the field praised the petitioner’s contributions but lacked concrete evidence of his research’s national impact.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
The petitioner included letters from notable figures in the medical field supporting his work, but these letters did not provide sufficient evidence of the petitioner’s research influencing clinical practices on a national scale.
Other Supporting Documentation:
Awards and recognitions were cited, but they were not shown to be indicative of a significant influence on the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The AAO concluded that while the petitioner demonstrated significant potential and intrinsic merit in his research, he did not meet the necessary criteria for a national interest waiver. Specifically, the petitioner did not show that his past achievements had influenced the field of pulmonary and critical care medicine to a degree that would justify waiving the job offer requirement based on national interest.
