Date of Decision: December 10, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Process Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: Process Engineer
Field: Semiconductor Manufacturing
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Qualification for EB-2 Classification: The Beneficiary qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, having received a Ph.D. in electrical engineering.
Criteria Not Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary’s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance.
Broader Implications: The Petitioner failed to show that the Beneficiary’s work would impact the field of semiconductor manufacturing or U.S. trade more broadly.
Projected Economic Impact: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the economic implications of its operations would be attributable to the Beneficiary’s work to an extent that meets the national importance standard.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner aims to employ the Beneficiary as a process engineer, focusing on designing and planning the layout for material processing operations, developing and driving process improvements, and supporting processes for high volume manufacturing in the semiconductor industry.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The decision emphasized that while the Petitioner’s work in semiconductor manufacturing has merit, it did not rise to the level of national importance required for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the Beneficiary’s work would have a broad impact beyond the company’s specific projects.
Supporting Evidence:
Initial Submission: Included the Form I-140 petition, labor certification, educational credentials, and letters of support from colleagues.
Further Submission on Appeal: Provided additional documents, including a letter from the Beneficiary’s engineering manager, articles discussing the importance of semiconductor manufacturing, and job descriptions.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The primary inconsistency was the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating the broader impact and national importance of the Beneficiary’s work. The evidence provided did not establish that the Beneficiary’s specific contributions would significantly affect the field of semiconductor manufacturing or U.S. trade.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable in this case.
Business Plan:
Not applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter:
Included letters from colleagues and industry experts confirming the significance of the Beneficiary’s work in semiconductor manufacturing.
Any other supporting documentation:
Engineering Manager’s Letter: Detailed the Beneficiary’s specific job duties and contributions to the company’s process engineering projects.
Articles on Semiconductor Manufacturing: Discussed the challenges and importance of the semiconductor industry but did not directly tie the Beneficiary’s work to a national impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. While the Beneficiary qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor met the national importance criteria set forth in the Dhanasar framework. The evidence provided did not show that the Beneficiary’s work would have a broad impact on the field of semiconductor manufacturing or U.S. trade. Consequently, the initial decision to deny the petition was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
