Date of Decision: November 13, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Medicine
Petitioner Information
Profession: Resident Physician
Field: Medicine
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree Professional:
The petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, fulfilling the requirements for EB-2 classification.
Criteria Not Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his clinical work and research have a broader impact on the field of medicine or the U.S. healthcare industry.
Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to prove that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed cancer research due to the limited time allocated to research activities.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner aims to continue his research on treatment regimens for patients with acute leukemia and other cancer-related studies while working as a resident physician and in a future role as an assistant professor.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
While the petitioner’s proposed research has substantial merit, the evidence provided did not demonstrate its national importance. The petitioner’s clinical work and teaching duties were deemed insufficient to meet the national importance criterion of the Dhanasar framework.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, medical certifications, published articles, peer reviews, and reference letters from medical professionals. However, these documents did not sufficiently establish the broader impact of his work on the field of medicine or the U.S. healthcare system.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s current and prospective roles primarily involve patient care and treatment, with limited time devoted to research. This allocation of time was deemed insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed cancer research.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letters:
The petitioner provided letters from medical colleagues discussing his medical training, clinical work, and research projects, but these did not adequately address the national importance of his proposed work.
Any other supporting documentation:
Additional documents included articles discussing the side effects of treatment regimens, but these did not collectively meet the substantial merit and national importance criteria.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor met the substantial merit and national importance criteria necessary for a national interest waiver, nor did he demonstrate that he was well-positioned to advance his proposed research.
Reasoning:
The evidence provided did not adequately demonstrate that the petitioner’s work would have a broader national impact or that he was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The petitioner’s activities were primarily clinical, with limited time allocated to research, and lacked sufficient documentation to show a broader influence on the field of medicine or healthcare. Consequently, the petition was denied based on the criteria of national importance and the petitioner’s positioning to advance the endeavor.
