Date of Decision: DEC. 4, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Environmental and Atmospheric Science
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher in Environmental and Atmospheric Science
Field: Environmental and Atmospheric Science
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Employment in an Area of Substantial Intrinsic Merit: The Petitioner’s work in environmental and atmospheric science, particularly in greenhouse gas emissions and agricultural soil management, was deemed to have substantial intrinsic merit.
- National Scope of Proposed Benefit: The proposed benefits of the Petitioner’s work were considered to have national implications, particularly in the context of U.S. agriculture and environmental policy.
Criteria Not Met:
- Significant Benefit to the National Interest: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his contributions were of such a significant benefit to the national interest that a waiver of the job offer requirement was justified.
- Influence on the Field: The evidence provided did not show that the Petitioner’s work had a significant influence on the field of environmental and atmospheric science as a whole.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner aimed to develop alternative farming systems and techniques to enhance carbon sequestration, improve crop production, utilize energy waste products, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This included the innovative use of biochar and nanotechnology to improve agricultural practices and adapt to climate change.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s work was recognized for its substantial merit in understanding greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing agricultural practices. However, while the Petitioner’s research was innovative, it did not demonstrate a sufficiently broad influence to meet the national interest waiver requirements.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner provided letters from colleagues and experts attesting to the significance of his research. These letters highlighted his novel approaches and the potential future benefits of his work. Despite this, the evidence did not clearly establish how the Petitioner’s past research had a substantial impact on the field.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The decision noted inconsistencies in demonstrating the direct national impact of the Petitioner’s research. While the work was important, it did not show a past record of influencing national policies or practices to the degree required for a national interest waiver.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: The Petitioner included letters from experts and colleagues, detailing his research and its potential impact. However, these letters focused more on prospective benefits rather than established past achievements.
Business Plan: Not applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter: The letters from peers and experts acted as advisory support but lacked detailed evidence of the Petitioner’s influence on the field.
Any other supporting documentation: The Petitioner submitted publications, citations, and acknowledgments from other researchers, which were considered but found insufficient to meet the required criteria.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, with the Petitioner failing to meet the criteria for a national interest waiver.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that his past contributions were of such a significant national interest that they warranted a waiver of the labor certification requirement. The evidence did not show that his work had a substantial influence on the field or that it was irreplaceable by U.S. workers with similar qualifications.
