Date of Decision: NOV. 29, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Life Science Product Consultant
Field: Life Sciences
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Authorship of scholarly articles: The Petitioner submitted evidence of scholarly articles she authored, which were considered credible contributions to her field.
- Participation as a judge of the work of others: The Petitioner demonstrated participation as a judge in her field, which was acknowledged as meeting the regulatory criteria.
- Leading or Critical Role in Organizations: Evidence was provided showing the Petitioner’s significant role within a “Fortune 500” corporation, involving the development of innovative solutions in the life sciences industry.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements: The Petitioner’s evidence regarding her memberships was not considered sufficient to meet the regulatory criteria.
- Original contributions of major significance to her field: The Petitioner claimed to have made original contributions, but the provided documentation did not sufficiently establish the significance of these contributions.
- High salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others: The Petitioner did not pursue this criterion on appeal and it was deemed waived.
Key Points from the Decision
Performing in Leading or Critical Roles:
The Petitioner provided letters from her employer and its clients, detailing her leadership in the product life cycle, from ideation to commercialization. These letters, along with product design documentation and licensing contracts, established her leading role and her employer’s distinguished reputation.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The evidence included multiple scholarly articles authored by the Petitioner, demonstrating her contributions to the field of life sciences.
Participation as a Judge:
The Petitioner participated as a judge in evaluating the work of others within her field, further showcasing her recognition and expertise.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters from Employer and Clients: Detailed letters highlighting the Petitioner’s role and contributions within the company.
- Product Design Documentation: Documents listing the Petitioner as “product owner,” supporting her claims of leading roles.
- Scholarly Articles: Publications authored by the Petitioner, contributing to the field of life sciences.
- Industry Reports: Analysis from industry research groups establishing her employer’s leading status in providing digital services in life sciences.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The decision of the Director was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review.
Reasoning: The Petitioner met the initial evidence requirement for the requested classification. The Director is to conduct a final merits determination considering the entirety of the record to assess whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the top individuals in her field.
Next Steps: The Director will analyze the totality of the evidence and make a new decision. The outcome on remand remains undetermined.
