Date of Decision: January 12, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Behavioral Research
Petitioner Information
Profession: Behavioral Researcher
Field: Behavioral Research
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance due to its potential impact on public health and behavior modification.
Well-Positioned to Advance the Endeavor:
The Petitioner provided evidence of his qualifications and past achievements in the field, indicating he is well-positioned to advance his proposed work.
Criteria Not Met:
Evidence of Experience:
The Director initially found that the Petitioner had “fabricated and exaggerated” his experience, questioning the authenticity of certain documents submitted.
Material Misrepresentation:
The Director concluded that there was willful misrepresentation regarding the Petitioner’s experience, which was later challenged and not fully supported upon further review.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner aims to conduct behavioral research with a focus on public health improvement through behavior modification strategies. This includes developing programs and interventions to address various health-related behaviors.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The review highlighted that the Petitioner’s work in behavioral research has significant implications for public health, demonstrating both substantial merit and national importance. The endeavor aligns with national interest priorities in improving public health outcomes.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted letters of recommendation, affidavits, and a detailed description of his past work and future plans. These documents were intended to support his claims of experience and the importance of his proposed research.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Director noted inconsistencies in the evidence provided, particularly regarding the authenticity of a recommendation letter. However, upon appeal, it was found that the initial review did not adequately address all submitted evidence, leading to the remand for a more thorough analysis.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
The Petitioner provided letters of intent from institutions and collaborators expressing support for his research. These letters emphasized the potential impact and importance of his work in behavioral research.
Business Plan:
Not applicable in this case.
Advisory Letter:
An advisory letter from a reputed expert in behavioral research outlined the significance of the Petitioner’s work and his qualifications, supporting his eligibility for the NIW.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Additional affidavits and statements were submitted to clarify the circumstances around the contested recommendation letter, aiming to address the allegations of misrepresentation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The case has been remanded for further review.
Reasoning: The Director’s decision did not offer a complete and accurate analysis of the submitted evidence. The appeal review found that the Petitioner provided substantial evidence supporting his claims, necessitating a more thorough evaluation.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
