Date of Decision: August 10, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Autism Education
Petitioner Information
Profession: Teacher and Autism Education Researcher
Field: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Education
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree Professional: The Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Area of Substantial Intrinsic Merit: The Petitioner’s work in autism education and research was acknowledged as being in an area of substantial intrinsic merit.
Criteria Not Met:
Influence in the Field: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that her work had influenced the field of autism education to a significant extent.
National Impact: The evidence provided did not adequately show that her contributions had a substantial national impact.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner aimed to develop groundbreaking treatments for autism disorders through her work as a teacher and educational program developer.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Director recognized the substantial intrinsic merit of the Petitioner’s work and its potential national importance. However, it was concluded that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to prove her influence on the field or the national impact of her work.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted various documents, including reference letters, published work, conference presentations, and academic credentials.
While these documents highlighted her contributions, they did not provide specific evidence of national influence or impact on the field as a whole.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The supporting documents did not corroborate claims of significant national influence. The evidence provided was largely related to initiatives within her school or district and did not demonstrate a broader impact.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The Petitioner submitted reference letters describing her work and its potential impact. However, these letters lacked specific examples of how her work influenced the field on a national level.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
The Petitioner provided a letter from a colleague discussing her involvement in advisory committees. However, it did not explain how her participation had a broader impact beyond her immediate environment.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner included letters and documents related to her teaching initiatives and research activities. These did not provide concrete evidence of her influence on the field of autism education at a national level.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that her achievements had a significant impact on the field of autism education or that her contributions were of national importance.
Reasoning: The decision was based on the lack of substantial evidence showing that the Petitioner’s work had influenced the field of autism education beyond her immediate employment context.
Download The Full Petition Review Here
