Research Associate, Etymology
Matter of [Name not Provided], File No. WAC 03 042 54861 (AAO Feb 24, 2004) (NIW granted)
The AAO sustained an appeal of a CSC denial of an NIW petition filed by a research associate at the University of Guam. The petitioner was studying the management of invasive weeds and the use of pheromones to trap the New Guinea sugarcane weevil.
Evidence Submitted
The petitioner submitted 15 witness letters, many from current and past collaborators. The AAO found the letters submitted by those who had worked with the petitioner useful in this case, noting that they demonstrated the petitioner’s role in the field and the importance of his work. The decision stated:
While such letters cannot by themselves establish the petitioner’s influence on the field beyond his collaborators, they are useful and even necessary evidence as they explain the details of his work and the roles that he played in his projects. The record contains a total of 15 reference letters, nearly all from different institutions. The large number of letters from collaborators is due to the fact that the petitioner has worked in Guam, Vienna, Finland, Spain, Germany, Ethiopia, Great Britain, and India. Regardless, we do not find it useful to compare the number of letters from collaborators with the number of independent letters. Rather, what is significant is who the independent experts are, how they learned of the petitioner’s work, and what they say. . . . While some of these letters simply discuss the importance of the petitioner’s area of research and his qualification to work in the field, other letters are more significant.
The AAO specifically noted a letter from a professor at Cornell University who was a member of the National Academy of Sciences. According to the AAO, this professor asserted that:
the petitioner “has made a breakthrough observation that employing synthetic pheromones and plant-based chemicals can result in the efficient mass trapping without pesticides.” [The professor] explains that this technique that can be used with numerous pests. [The professor] specifically adds that the petitioner “has made significant advances where others have failed.”
The record also included a letter from an entomology professor who was the director of the Coastal Research and Education Center at Clemson University and Team Leader of their Integrated Pest Management (IPM) project in Indonesia. Like the Cornell professor, the Clemson professor explained the specific potential uses of the petitioner’s work. However, the Clemson professor also listed the places in which the petitioner’s work had already been used to help farmers:
Thus far IPM programs on cruciferous crops developed by [the petitioner] have greatly helped the farmers from . . . South Carolina, California, New York, Michigan and Florida. Similarly, [an] IPM program on cotton has helped the farming community in controlling the bolls worms in Mississippi, Florida, California, Arizona and Tennessee. [The petitioner] has developed an IPM program recently on eggplant [that] will be very valuable in the coming days to the regions where the eggplant and other vegetables are grown in the U.S.
Also submitted to the record were several articles that had been published before the filing, along with evidence that government agencies and the agriculture industry had been influenced by the articles. The AAO found this evidence of the petitioner’s impact persuasive:
The petitioner submitted evidence that these articles were not merely published, but recognized in the field. Such evidence included, but was not limited to, reprint requests from government agencies and those in the agriculture industry. This objective evidence supports the assertions made by the petitioner’s references.
The Approval
The AAO granted the petitioner a national interest waiver, finding that the evidence submitted successfully demonstrated the influence of the petitioner’s work beyond his immediate projects. In reference to the Clemson professor’s testimonial, the AAO found:
These comments suggest that the proposed future benefits of the petitioner’s work are not merely hypothetical. Rather, the petitioner has already impacted the agricultural industry.
In this case, the strongly worded testimony of renowned experts and the objective evidence that others in the industry had implemented the petitioner’s methods was sufficient to demonstrate his impact in etymology.
Matter of [Name not Provided], File No. WAC 03 042 54861 (AAO Feb 24, 2004) (NIW granted)
The AAO sustained an appeal of a CSC denial of an NIW petition filed by a research associate at the University of Guam. The petitioner was studying the management of invasive weeds and the use of pheromones to trap the New Guinea sugarcane weevil.
Evidence Submitted
The petitioner submitted 15 witness letters, many from current and past collaborators. The AAO found the letters submitted by those who had worked with the petitioner useful in this case, noting that they demonstrated the petitioner’s role in the field and the importance of his work. The decision stated:
While such letters cannot by themselves establish the petitioner’s influence on the field beyond his collaborators, they are useful and even necessary evidence as they explain the details of his work and the roles that he played in his projects. The record contains a total of 15 reference letters, nearly all from different institutions. The large number of letters from collaborators is due to the fact that the petitioner has worked in Guam, Vienna, Finland, Spain, Germany, Ethiopia, Great Britain, and India. Regardless, we do not find it useful to compare the number of letters from collaborators with the number of independent letters. Rather, what is significant is who the independent experts are, how they learned of the petitioner’s work, and what they say. . . . While some of these letters simply discuss the importance of the petitioner’s area of research and his qualification to work in the field, other letters are more significant.
The AAO specifically noted a letter from a professor at Cornell University who was a member of the National Academy of Sciences. According to the AAO, this professor asserted that:
the petitioner “has made a breakthrough observation that employing synthetic pheromones and plant-based chemicals can result in the efficient mass trapping without pesticides.” [The professor] explains that this technique that can be used with numerous pests. [The professor] specifically adds that the petitioner “has made significant advances where others have failed.”
The record also included a letter from an entomology professor who was the director of the Coastal Research and Education Center at Clemson University and Team Leader of their Integrated Pest Management (IPM) project in Indonesia. Like the Cornell professor, the Clemson professor explained the specific potential uses of the petitioner’s work. However, the Clemson professor also listed the places in which the petitioner’s work had already been used to help farmers:
Thus far IPM programs on cruciferous crops developed by [the petitioner] have greatly helped the farmers from . . . South Carolina, California, New York, Michigan and Florida. Similarly, [an] IPM program on cotton has helped the farming community in controlling the bolls worms in Mississippi, Florida, California, Arizona and Tennessee. [The petitioner] has developed an IPM program recently on eggplant [that] will be very valuable in the coming days to the regions where the eggplant and other vegetables are grown in the U.S.
Also submitted to the record were several articles that had been published before the filing, along with evidence that government agencies and the agriculture industry had been influenced by the articles. The AAO found this evidence of the petitioner’s impact persuasive:
The petitioner submitted evidence that these articles were not merely published, but recognized in the field. Such evidence included, but was not limited to, reprint requests from government agencies and those in the agriculture industry. This objective evidence supports the assertions made by the petitioner’s references.
The Approval
The AAO granted the petitioner a national interest waiver, finding that the evidence submitted successfully demonstrated the influence of the petitioner’s work beyond his immediate projects. In reference to the Clemson professor’s testimonial, the AAO found:
These comments suggest that the proposed future benefits of the petitioner’s work are not merely hypothetical. Rather, the petitioner has already impacted the agricultural industry.
In this case, the strongly worded testimony of renowned experts and the objective evidence that others in the industry had implemented the petitioner’s methods was sufficient to demonstrate his impact in etymology.
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
