Date of Decision: December 4, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Education
Petitioner Information
Profession: Special Education Instructional Coordinator
Field: Special Education and Elementary Education
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit: The Petitioner’s work as a special education instructional coordinator has substantial merit.
Criteria Not Met:
National Importance: The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has national importance.
Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor: The evidence provided did not establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
Beneficial to the United States: The Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, making further analysis under the second and third prongs unnecessary.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner, an elementary school teacher, proposed to work as a special education instructional coordinator. She intended to design a new instructional model for language arts education that would integrate insights from both regular and special education to improve instructional approaches.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s proposed work aims to improve language arts instruction by facilitating communication between regular and special education areas. However, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that her proposed work would have broader implications in the field. The documentation did not establish how she would introduce her instructional model or demonstrate its potential impact on a larger scale.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, which requires demonstrating the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Without meeting this requirement, further analysis of her eligibility under the second and third prongs was unnecessary.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted educational credentials, recommendation letters, employment verifications, and recognition certificates. However, these documents did not provide sufficient evidence of the national importance of her proposed endeavor or her positioning to advance it.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were no significant inconsistencies noted in the proposed endeavor. The primary issue was the lack of sufficient evidence to support the Petitioner’s claims regarding the national importance and broader implications of her work.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The Petitioner provided letters of recommendation, but they did not address her future plans or discuss the national importance of her proposed endeavor.
Business Plan:
No specific business plan was summarized in the decision.
Advisory Letter:
No specific advisory letters were summarized in the decision.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The Petitioner submitted photocopies of documents previously provided, including her educational credentials and recognition certificates.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, failing to demonstrate the national importance of her proposed work. As a result, she did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver.
