Date of Decision: January 19, 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: Physics Researcher
Field: Physics
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The Director determined that the petitioner’s proposed endeavor met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, indicating that it had substantial merit and national importance.
Criteria Not Met:
- Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he was well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Despite his academic accomplishments and involvement in research projects, the evidence did not convincingly show his capability to influence the field of physics significantly.
- Beneficial to the United States to Waive the Requirements of the Labor Certification Process: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that waiving the labor certification requirement would be beneficial to the United States. The evidence did not sufficiently support the claim that his contributions justified waiving the labor certification process.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue his physics research, specifically focusing on projects he had been involved in as a doctoral candidate and research assistant.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor was recognized for its substantial merit and national importance. However, this recognition alone was not sufficient to meet all the criteria for a national interest waiver.
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 contribute to the United States by advancing the field of physics. However, he did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that his contributions would justify waiving the labor certification process.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, and published articles. However, these documents did not adequately demonstrate his ability to significantly impact his field. The letters from colleagues and professionals praised his work but did not provide concrete examples of his research being implemented or having a substantial influence.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s assertions about his influence and impact were not fully supported by the evidence provided. The documentation did not clearly show that his work had been widely adopted or recognized in the field of physics.
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 claim of national importance.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Included letters from colleagues and professionals, praising his work but not adequately demonstrating his significant impact in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the criteria for demonstrating that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor or that waiving the labor certification requirement would benefit the United States. The evidence provided was insufficient to support his claims of substantial impact and national importance.
