Date of Decision: August 22, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Education Research
Petitioner Information
Profession: Teacher and ASD Education Researcher
Field: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Education
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied (Motion to Reopen and Reconsider)
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
The petitioner established that her proposed research in ASD education has substantial merit and national importance.
Criteria Not Met:
The petitioner did not demonstrate a record of success or progress in her field that positions her well to advance her proposed endeavor.
The petitioner did not establish that waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the United States.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue her research on developing and expanding novel instructional and assessment methods to improve the verbal, cognitive, and behavioral skills of ASD students.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s research was found to have substantial merit and national importance due to its potential impact on improving educational methods for ASD students. However, this alone was not sufficient to satisfy all criteria for the national interest waiver.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided letters of support from professors discussing her research, evidence of her authorship of journal articles, and records of conference presentations. However, these were all published or presented after the filing date of the Form I-140, which does not establish eligibility as per 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12).
Additional evidence included advisory roles, peer review solicitations, and invitations to publish and present her research. Still, these activities also post-dated the Form I-140 filing date and did not demonstrate that her work had been frequently cited or implemented in educational practices.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner claimed new facts relevant to her application but did not provide additional documentation to support these claims in the motion to reopen. Her assertions did not adequately address the deficiencies noted in the previous decisions.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not specified in the document.
Business Plan:
Not specified in the document.
Advisory Letter:
Provided, but the contributions were noted to post-date the filing of Form I-140.
Any other supporting documentation:
Peer review solicitations, conference invitations, and publication records, which also post-dated the filing of Form I-140.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and reconsider is denied.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not present new facts or evidence demonstrating eligibility for the national interest waiver. The previously submitted evidence did not establish her as well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor, nor did it show that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. Consequently, the petitioner did not meet the three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework, and the appeal was denied.
