Date of Decision: April 25, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Geology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Geology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Advanced Degree Classification: The Petitioner was recognized as holding an advanced degree, fulfilling the requirement for EB-2 classification.
- National Interest Waiver First Prong: The Petitioner met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, establishing that her work has substantial merit and national importance.
Criteria Not Met:
- Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate her ability to advance her proposed endeavor as a scientific researcher in geology.
- Second Prong of Dhanasar Framework: The Petitioner failed to meet the second prong, which assesses whether the individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner’s proposed endeavor involves continuing her work as a scientific researcher in geology, supporting the training of new researchers and geoscientists.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s work in geology was deemed to have substantial merit and national importance, meeting the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted a letter explaining her academic background and professional experience, along with two letters of recommendation. However, the recommendations failed to address the proposed endeavor and the Petitioner’s ability to advance it.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
One of the recommendation letters contained inconsistent gender pronouns, which called into question the credibility and care with which the letter was prepared.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable
Business Plan:
Not applicable
Advisory Letter:
The advisory letters praised the Petitioner’s professionalism but did not provide specific details about her proposed endeavor.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Not applicable
Conclusion
The appeal was denied. The Petitioner did not provide new evidence or facts to overcome the grounds for the initial dismissal, and the motion to reopen was dismissed for failing to meet the specific requirements.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
