Date of Decision: April 22, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery Systems for HIV and Tuberculosis (TB)
Petitioner Information
Profession: Postdoctoral Research Associate
Field: Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery Systems for HIV and Tuberculosis (TB)
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 nanotechnology for drug delivery systems has important applications, particularly in treating HIV and TB.
National Scope:
The petitioner’s research has the potential to impact public health on a national level due to its focus on major diseases like HIV and TB.
Criteria Not Met:
Influence on the Field:
The petitioner’s citation record and the extent of influence on the field were deemed insufficient to demonstrate substantial impact.
Past Record of Achievement:
The petitioner’s documented achievements were not sufficient to justify projections of future benefit to the national interest.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor involves using nanotechnology to develop drug delivery systems for HIV and TB, which could potentially revolutionize treatment approaches and improve patient outcomes.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s work is recognized as having substantial merit due to its focus on significant public health issues. However, while the petitioner’s contributions are promising, they have not yet demonstrated a level of influence and recognition necessary to justify the waiver of the job offer requirement.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided several letters of recommendation, publications, and evidence of citations. Despite the technical detail and positive endorsements in the letters, the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner’s influence on the field as a whole.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The director noted a lack of independent evidence corroborating the assertions made in the letters of recommendation. The letters alone, without supporting documentation, were not enough to establish the petitioner’s eligibility.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: The petitioner provided letters from various experts, highlighting the potential impact and significance of his work in nanotechnology for drug delivery systems.
Business Plan: Not applicable.
Advisory Letter: Multiple advisory letters from faculty members and industry experts were submitted, detailing the petitioner’s contributions and potential future impact.
Any Other Supporting Documentation: The petitioner submitted evidence of publications and citations, although the citation count was considered insufficient.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a past record of achievement and influence on the field that would justify a waiver of the job offer requirement.
