Date of Decision: May 29, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Public Administration and Policy
Petitioner Information
Profession: Public Administration and Policy Professor
Field: Public Administration and Policy
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree Professional:
The petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, fulfilling the requirements for EB-2 classification.
Criteria Not Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has broader implications and national importance.
Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to prove that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor effectively.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner intends to work as a Public Administration and Policy Professor, focusing on public policy contributions aimed at municipal improvements and enhancing social/public welfare in economically depressed regions, specifically starting in California.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the petitioner’s proposed work has substantial merit, aiming to support economic growth and provide vocational training, the evidence provided did not demonstrate that these efforts would have a broader national impact. The proposed projects were limited in scope, focusing on local community benefits without showing significant potential to employ U.S. workers or create substantial economic effects nationally.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted a project plan for establishing a non-profit organization to address economic and social welfare issues in California. The evidence included articles on regional economic problems, letters from colleagues, and descriptions of past projects. However, these did not sufficiently prove the proposed endeavor’s broader impact or national importance.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The evidence did not show that the petitioner’s proposed activities would significantly advance the fields of public administration or public policy on a national level. The petitioner’s previous work and proposed projects did not demonstrate a record of success or substantial positive discourse in the broader academic community.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Letters from colleagues and associates highlighted the petitioner’s contributions but did not establish broader national interest or substantial impact.
Business Plan:
The petitioner provided a detailed project plan for the non-profit organization, outlining its goals and intended projects but lacking sufficient evidence of national impact.
Advisory Letters:
Advisory letters supported the petitioner’s qualifications and proposed work but did not adequately address the national importance criterion.
Any other supporting documentation:
The petitioner included articles, letters, and project plans, but these did not collectively meet the substantial merit and national importance criteria.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor met the substantial merit and national importance criteria necessary for a national interest waiver.
Reasoning:
The evidence provided did not adequately demonstrate that the petitioner’s work would have a broader national impact or that he was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The petitioner’s activities were primarily local and lacked sufficient documentation to show a broader influence on public administration or public policy. Consequently, the petition was denied based on the criteria of national importance and the petitioner’s positioning to advance the endeavor.
