Date of Decision: December 14, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Local and Regional Economic Development
Petitioner Information
Profession: Researcher
Field: Local and Regional Economic Development
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Intrinsic Merit: The petitioner’s work in local and regional economic development, focusing on distressed regions, was recognized for its potential benefits to the U.S. economy.
- National Scope: The petitioner successfully argued that improving economic conditions in distressed regions benefits the national economy.
Criteria Not Met:
- Significant Benefit to the Field: The petitioner failed to demonstrate significant influence on the field of regional economic development at a national level.
- Documentary Evidence of Impact: The provided letters lacked supporting documentary evidence to substantiate claims of economic improvement.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to conduct research on economic development in distressed regions of the U.S., intending to implement strategies to enhance economic conditions and benefit the national economy.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s work was recognized for its potential to benefit economically distressed areas, which could, in turn, have national implications. However, the petitioner could not provide sufficient evidence of significant past achievements.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner presented letters from colleagues and professionals attesting to the importance of his work, evidence of his academic credentials, and details of his involvement in regional projects. Despite these submissions, the lack of documentary evidence diminished the impact of these claims.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The decision noted inconsistencies in the petitioner’s claims about the national impact of his work, citing a lack of evidence to support the stated benefits.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Several letters from supervisors and independent professionals highlighted the petitioner’s expertise and the potential benefits of his work. However, these letters lacked documentary evidence.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Included letters from various professionals, but they did not provide substantial documentary evidence of the petitioner’s influence on the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the required burden of proof to demonstrate that his work would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than a minimally qualified U.S. worker.
