Date of Decision: March 17, 2022
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Urban Planning and Environmental Policy
Petitioner Information
Profession: Urban Planning and Environmental Policy Researcher
Field: Urban Planning and Environmental Policy
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Merit and National Importance: The proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.
Criteria Not Met:
- Well-Positioned to Advance: The record does not establish the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to conduct research and provide expertise in urban planning and environmental policy. This included working on projects related to flood control and environmental sustainability.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The appeal recognized that the Petitioner’s proposed work has both substantial merit and national importance due to its potential impact on urban planning and environmental policies, particularly in areas prone to flooding and environmental degradation.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
The decision noted that, despite the proposed endeavor’s merit and importance, the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate being well-positioned to advance the endeavor.
Key quotes or references:
- “The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance.”
- “The record does not establish the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner provided letters from a professor of urban planning and environmental policy and an assistant project manager from a flood control district. However, these letters did not introduce new facts or sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements for reopening the case.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner’s motion to reopen was dismissed due to a lack of new facts or substantial new evidence to support the claim of being well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
- Provided a general endorsement but lacked specific new facts to support the motion to reopen.
Business Plan:
- Not provided.
Advisory Letter:
- Included a one-page letter from a professor, but it did not contain new facts or substantial evidence.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
- Not applicable.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was dismissed. The Petitioner did not meet the requirements to provide new facts or substantial evidence in support of reopening the case.
Reasoning: The Petitioner’s motion was dismissed because it did not introduce new facts or sufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
