Date of Decision: August 13, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Physics
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physicist
Field: Physics
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Advanced Degree Qualification: The petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner holds a foreign bachelor’s degree in physics and a U.S. professional master’s degree, along with over ten years of progressively responsible work experience.
Criteria Not Met:
- Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The Director did not provide sufficient analysis to determine whether the petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
- National Importance: The Director did not provide a clear determination regarding the national importance of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner, a physicist, proposed to continue his work in the field of physics, focusing on research and development in advanced physics concepts. He aimed to contribute to the scientific community and advance knowledge in his field through innovative research and collaboration with other experts.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor in physics has substantial merit. However, the Director’s decision did not provide a sufficient explanation regarding the national importance of the petitioner’s work. The evidence provided did not conclusively show that his work would significantly impact the broader U.S. scientific community or contribute substantially to advancements in physics at a national level.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The petitioner argued that his work would benefit the United States by advancing scientific research and contributing to technological innovations. However, the Director found insufficient evidence to support these claims. The proposed work did not show substantial potential to employ U.S. workers or provide notable scientific advancements that would justify waiving the labor certification process.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted various documents, including academic records, letters of support, and evaluations of his foreign academic credentials. However, these documents did not sufficiently demonstrate that his specific endeavor would have a significant national impact or that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s statements about the broader impact of his work were not supported by sufficient evidence to demonstrate its national importance. Additionally, there were inconsistencies in the Director’s analysis and documentation regarding the petitioner’s qualifications and professional memberships.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not provided or summarized in the decision.
Advisory Letter:
Provided but not sufficiently detailed to support the national importance of the petitioner’s work.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The petitioner provided articles and support letters, but these did not adequately demonstrate the national importance of his work.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was remanded.
Reasoning: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. The Director must provide a clearer explanation regarding the petitioner’s qualifications and the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director may request additional evidence as needed to make a new determination.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
