Date of Decision: January 9, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Transplant Nephrology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician
Field: Transplant Nephrology
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner demonstrated that the field of transplant nephrology is of substantial intrinsic merit and that the proposed benefit is national in scope.
Criteria Not Met:
- Past Record of Achievement: The petitioner failed to establish a record of significant influence on the field of transplant nephrology that would justify a waiver of the job offer requirement.
- Impact and Recognition: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that her contributions have been recognized as significant at a national level.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue her work in transplant nephrology, emphasizing her role in treating complex kidney disorders and conducting research on transplant medicine.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The AAO acknowledged the intrinsic merit of the petitioner’s work in transplant nephrology but found that the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate the national scope of her proposed benefit.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted letters from various colleagues, abstracts of conference presentations, and other products of her work. However, the AAO found that this evidence did not adequately demonstrate a significant national impact.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were discrepancies in the petitioner’s claims about her influence and recognition in the field. The AAO noted a lack of substantial documentary evidence to support the petitioner’s assertions about her achievements and impact.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Summarized testimonials from peers and colleagues highlighted the petitioner’s skills and contributions but lacked verifiable evidence of national recognition.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
The advisory letters submitted did not sufficiently corroborate the petitioner’s claims of national significance and influence in transplant nephrology.
Any other supporting documentation:
The petitioner’s documentation included research abstracts and conference presentations, which did not adequately establish the petitioner’s influence beyond her immediate training institutions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the denial of the petition.
Reasoning: The AAO concluded that the petitioner did not meet the required evidentiary criteria to establish that her work in transplant nephrology is of substantial national importance and that her contributions have a significant national impact.
