Date of Decision: April 22, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Complexity Leadership
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher and Scholar
Field: Complexity Leadership
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Intrinsic Merit: The petitioner’s work in complexity leadership was recognized as having substantial intrinsic merit.
Advanced Degree: The petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Criteria Not Met:
National Scope: The benefits of the petitioner’s work were not demonstrated to be national in scope.
National Interest: The petitioner did not show that his work would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than that of others in his field.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to create a non-profit foundation focused on implementing a high school life skills program in classrooms across the United States, targeting high school students with cognitive disabilities
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s work was acknowledged for its substantial intrinsic merit in educational leadership and special education. However, the benefits were not shown to be national in scope, and there was insufficient evidence to prove the petitioner’s influence on the field as a whole.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided webpages from December 2014 discussing the proposal to create a foundation, but these were not sufficient to establish eligibility at the time of filing. There was no documentary evidence of implementation by school systems or financial grants received for the foundation.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s proposal and supporting evidence were found lacking in showing immediate and tangible impact on the field of special education at a national level.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not provided or not applicable.
Business Plan: The petitioner mentioned a proposal for creating a foundation, but it was not formalized at the time of filing and lacked evidence of impact.
Advisory Letter: Included a letter stating the potential broad applicability of the petitioner’s work but failed to provide specific examples or impact on the field
Other Supporting Documentation: The petitioner’s credentials in computer technology, educational leadership, and political science were noted, but these did not sufficiently demonstrate a national impact or influence in special education.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Denied
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the criteria for demonstrating that his work would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than others in his field. The evidence provided did not show a national scope or significant impact on the field of educational leadership or special education
This case highlights the importance of providing concrete evidence of national impact and influence in the field when seeking a National Interest Waiver.
