Date of Decision: MAR. 29, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Medical Practitioner and Researcher
Petitioner Information
Profession: Medical Practitioner and Researcher
Field: Public Health, Maternal and Infant Nutrition
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: The petitioner’s education renders her eligible for the underlying immigrant visa classification.
Criterion 2: The petitioner has qualifications for the EB-2 classification based on her education in Nigeria.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: The Director did not make a specific finding that the petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification.
Criterion 2: The Director discussed evidence that is not in the record, such as a business plan that was not submitted.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor
The petitioner proposed to work on the prevention of maternal and infant micro and macro-nutrient deficiency through research.
Substantial Merit and National Importance
The petitioner demonstrated the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed endeavor through her work in public health and maternal and infant nutrition.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner provided degrees, diplomas, and a World Education Service credential evaluation. However, the transcripts and credential evaluation were not present in the record. The Director referenced evidence not from this record and mischaracterized the petitioner’s proposed endeavor as related to transportation safety systems, which was incorrect.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor
The Director’s decision contained inconsistencies, such as discussing the petitioner’s expertise in transportation safety systems, which was not related to her proposed endeavor in maternal and infant nutrition.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not applicable.
Business Plan: The Director referenced a non-existent business plan.
Advisory Letter: Not specified in the document.
Any other supporting documentation: The Director mentioned various documents not present in the record, leading to an unclear analysis.
Conclusion
Final Determination
The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the analysis provided.
Reasoning: The Director did not sufficiently analyze or discuss the evidence in the record and referenced non-existent evidence, resulting in a decision that was insufficient for review.
