Date of Decision: March 20, 2019
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: Teacher
Field: Education
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree Professional:
The petitioner holds an advanced degree in education, satisfying the requirement for the EB-2 classification.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s work in education was initially recognized for its potential to impact the U.S. education system positively.
Criteria Not Met:
Positioned to Advance Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a significant impact or recognition in the field of education. There was a lack of substantial proof of success or influence.
Benefit to the United States:
The petitioner did not adequately establish that waiving the job offer requirement would significantly benefit the U.S. There was insufficient evidence to prove that her contributions would outweigh those of available U.S. workers.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner intends to continue her work as a teacher, focusing on innovative educational practices that could enhance the quality of education in the United States.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed work has substantial merit in improving educational practices and contributing to advancements in the field of education. This work holds potential national importance due to its implications for the U.S. education system.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided a detailed resume, academic credentials, and letters of support from colleagues and educational professionals. These documents highlighted her achievements and potential contributions to education.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
Despite the promising nature of the petitioner’s work, there were inconsistencies and gaps in the evidence regarding its broader implementation and impact. The petitioner’s claims about her potential contributions were not fully substantiated by the documentation provided.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The petitioner included letters from colleagues and educational professionals emphasizing the potential impact of her work on education. These letters supported her claims regarding the national importance of her research and projects.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letters:
Several advisory letters were provided, emphasizing the innovative nature of the petitioner’s educational practices and their potential benefits.
Any other supporting documentation:
The petitioner provided evidence of her published articles and conference presentations, which reflect her ongoing commitment to her field.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The motion to reconsider was denied. The petitioner failed to establish that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and she did not overcome the grounds underlying the decision.
Reasoning:
The petitioner’s motion did not demonstrate that the previous decision was incorrect based on the application of law or policy. Additionally, the petitioner’s failure to file the motion within the required timeframe and lack of substantial evidence to support her claims were key reasons for the denial.
