NIW Case Study: Supporting professionals in key research projects

The NIW is typically sought out by scientists who lead and develop original research in topics highly important to the country, but it can also be used – with the right evidence – by supporting professionals who play a key helping role in these projects.

Two approval opinions by the AAO gives us insights into how to present a persuasive NIW argument in cases where the applicant plays a supporting role in ground-breaking research projects, but is not the originator or even the principal researcher developing this research.

This NIW petition submitted by an employer on behalf of an employee, who served as lead software engineer for a project to develop tools for plant science researchers to manage massive data. The AAO found this proposed endeavor had substantial merit because “it supports the needs of the scientific community and facilitates progress in plant biology research.”

Going further, the AAO relied on letters from experts discussing the “widespread benefits” associated with this development project, noting $100-million scale investment in the project.” The petitioner also submitted published articles discussing the expected benefits of this tool for researchers, which included making complex bioinformatics resources more accessible to researchers, furthering discoveries in plant science, and providing a platform for education and outreach programs open to many. Based on this, the beneficiary’s work was found to have importance to plant biology research both at a national and international level.

The petition included several compelling examples of the beneficiary’s record of success to date, which made him well positioned to continue with this project. Numerous support letters confirmed the beneficiary’s key role in designing and implementing the web interface and cyberinfrastructure. The petition also included documentation of 200+ research publications that mentioned or acknowledged the program that the beneficiary developed, as contributing to the work or results published.  Widespread utilization of the beneficiary’s work product and documentation (through letters) of beneficiary’s significant role as in this project were key positive factors.

Similarly, a NIW petition for a self-petitioner, a biostatistician, was approved for their proposed work to support medical research through her roles of ensuring rigorous study design and implementation, and analysis of data from that ground-breaking research.

The self-petitioner submitted letters from experts describing the importance of their supporting work, in particular, to ensure that the results of the research studies were accurate and that the interpretation of those results were valid. The record also included information from official web pages describing the international scale of the particular study the petitioner was supporting, and its impact on the medical field. The petition also submitted proof that results from biostatistical research were disseminated to others in the field through medical conferences and journals, which further convinced that this work had “national and international” implications to the field.

The self-petitioner was found to be well positioned to carry on this role to ensure rigorous study design and implementation, and analysis of data, based on their prior successful contributions in the past several years in research projects conducted at this clinical trials network. Letters mentioned that the self-petitioner’s work led to numerous scientific presentations, and that the petitioner had co-authored peer-reviewed manuscripts. A medical officer in the program testified to Petitioner’s superior talents and “unique contributions” to this study, which “ensure the participants’ safety and smooth conduct of the study,” such as conducting monitoring and analyses to see if decisions could be made more quickly and efficiently. The petitioner’s prior biostatistics work in other influential, related projects further demonstrated that this petitioner was well positioned to advance this endeavor.

In conclusion, with the right evidence, a compelling argument for a national interest waiver can be made for supporting professionals who play a significant role in a project that advances important U.S. interests, such as scientific discovery or healthcare.