Date of Decision: August 25, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Vapor Phase Decomposition (VPD) Engineering
Petitioner Information
Profession: VPD Engineer
Field: Vapor Phase Decomposition Engineering
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Evidence of at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation
The petitioner provided letters from current and former employers demonstrating over ten years of experience in the VPD engineering field. - Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations
The petitioner submitted letters from peers and co-inventors recognizing his contributions, particularly in developing HBB technology for semiconductor chip wafer production quality monitoring.
Criteria Not Met:
- Evidence of commanding a salary or other remuneration for services which demonstrates exceptional ability
The petitioner’s salary at the time of filing was significantly below the prevailing wage for similar positions in his field. - Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations
Although letters were provided, they did not sufficiently demonstrate recognition beyond the petitioner’s immediate professional circle.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor involved working as a VPD engineer, specializing in the maintenance and development of VPD equipment for monitoring semiconductor chip wafer production quality.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s work was recognized for its technical merit, particularly in developing HBB technology. However, the evidence did not demonstrate a significant impact or recognition at the national level.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided various supporting documents, including letters of intent, an employment agreement, and business evaluations. However, the documentation did not convincingly establish eligibility for the requested classification.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s earnings were significantly below industry standards, and some claims regarding recognition and achievements lacked corroborative evidence.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not provided.
Business Plan:
A business evaluation was submitted, indicating the potential for future remuneration, but this did not establish eligibility at the time of filing.
Advisory Letter:
Not provided.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
The petitioner submitted IRS forms and employment agreements, but these did not substantiate the exceptional ability claim at the time of filing.
Conclusion
The appeal was denied. The petitioner did not meet the evidentiary requirements for classification as an alien of exceptional ability under the EB-2 NIW criteria.
