Date of Decision: July 31, 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: Nigeria
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Advanced Degree:
The petitioner holds an advanced degree and qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. - National Interest:
The petitioner asserted that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States.
Criteria Not Met:
- Job Offer Exemption:
The petitioner did not initially establish that an exemption from the job offer requirement would be in the national interest. - Evidence Submission:
The director’s decision was based on evidence not submitted by the petitioner, leading to a remand for a new decision based on the correct record.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner seeks employment as a physician specializing in hematology and oncology, emphasizing the national interest in his work.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor in hematology and oncology was found to have substantial merit and national importance, but inconsistencies in the director’s evaluation necessitated a remand.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted a comprehensive response to the Request for Evidence (RFE), but the director’s decision inaccurately reflected the petitioner’s submissions, mixing up evidence from another case.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The decision included incorrect references to geographic limitations and employer details not relevant to the petitioner, further demonstrating the need for a remand.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Included in the petition were letters demonstrating intent to employ the petitioner in roles crucial to public health.
Business Plan:
Not applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter:
The petitioner provided advisory letters supporting his qualifications and the national importance of his work.
Other Supporting Documentation:
Additional documents, including professional publications and recommendations, were submitted to support the petitioner’s case.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The decision was remanded due to incorrect evidence consideration, necessitating a new decision based on accurate and relevant submissions.
Reasoning:
The remand was based on the director’s reliance on mixed-up evidence not part of the petitioner’s file, requiring a reevaluation of the petitioner’s actual submissions.
