Date of Decision: May 15, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Public Administration and Social Welfare
Petitioner Information
Profession: Public Administration Policy Professor
Field: Development Institute Director
Nationality: Korean
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree: The Petitioner possesses a Doctor of Public Administration and a Master of Public Administration, equivalent to a U.S. doctorate and master’s degree, respectively.
Criteria Not Met:
National Interest: The Petitioner did not establish that waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the national interest.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to work as an instructional or academic research professor in the U.S., focusing on social welfare, social justice, public administration, and municipal planning. Additionally, the Petitioner intended to assist in establishing a U.S. branch of a Korean rehabilitation and assistive technology company.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
Merit and Importance: The appeal review found that the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor lacked a clear explanation and sufficient supporting evidence to determine its substantial merit and national importance.
Key Quotes: “The record does not clearly explain the Petitioner’s proposed endeavor such that we are able to determine…that his proposed work will have both substantial merit and national importance.”
Supporting Evidence:
Letters of Intent: Various letters from potential future employers and collaborators expressed interest in the Petitioner’s proposed endeavors but did not provide specific details or progress towards establishing these endeavors.
Memorandum and Business Plan: The submitted memorandum discussed a collaborative project in the Philippines but did not provide a detailed business plan for the proposed U.S. subsidiary.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient details and evidence of how his time would be divided among multiple proposed endeavors, leading to a lack of clarity regarding his primary focus and impact.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Several letters from potential collaborators in the U.S. expressed interest in future partnerships but lacked specific details.
Business Plan:
The provided memorandum did not include a detailed business plan for the U.S. subsidiary.
Advisory Letter:
Included support from a Korean company intending to establish a U.S. branch, yet lacked specifics on the business operations and impact.
Conclusion
The appeal was denied. The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance, or that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
