Date of Decision: January 10, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Pediatric Oncology
Petitioner Information
Profession: Scientist and Researcher
Field: Pediatric Oncology
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner’s research in pediatric oncology using zebrafish models and molecular biology techniques was recognized for its substantial merit and potential significant impact on cancer treatment outcomes.
- Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: Despite initial findings, the appellate review found the petitioner well-positioned due to her comprehensive background, including education, publications, and letters of recommendation.
Criteria Not Met:
- Detailed Evaluation of Professional Eligibility: The initial decision failed to properly evaluate whether the petitioner met the requirements of an advanced degree professional under the EB-2 classification.
- Balancing Factors for Waiver Benefit: The original decision did not adequately consider the petitioner’s evidence demonstrating that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner aims to work as a senior scientist and conduct significant research in pediatric oncology, potentially impacting cancer treatment methodologies significantly.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The appeal recognized the proposed research’s potential to improve treatment outcomes, highlighting its importance in the medical field, particularly in pediatric oncology.
Supporting Evidence:
Included personal statements, academic credentials, recommendation letters, and published articles, emphasizing the depth and relevance of her work.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The initial decision questioned the timeline and specific roles the petitioner would undertake, which were not clearly defined in her application.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not specifically detailed in the decision.
Business Plan: Not applicable.
Advisory Letter: Letters of recommendation supported the petitioner’s qualifications and the national importance of her work.
Any other supporting documentation: Included academic articles and presentations at conferences.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The case has been remanded for further review, with instructions to adequately evaluate the petitioner’s qualifications and the national interest waiver criteria according to established legal frameworks.
Reasoning:
The remand was based on insufficient initial evaluation and failure to fully consider provided evidence, highlighting the need for a more thorough review.
