Date of Decision: May 11, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurship
Petitioner Information
Profession: Entrepreneur
Field: Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurship
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree: The Petitioner provided evidence of a bachelor’s degree in pharmacy and a credential evaluation indicating that this degree, plus more than five years of progressive experience, is equivalent to a master’s degree.
Professional Membership: The Petitioner provided proof of membership in professional associations related to her field.
Criteria Not Met:
None explicitly noted, as the decision was remanded for further review.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to manage and operate her own pharmaceutical company. The Petitioner aims to sell pharmaceutical products and provide related services, leveraging her expertise in the field of pharmacy.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Director initially denied the petition, stating that the proposed endeavor did not have substantial merit and national importance. However, the Director did not sufficiently explain the reasoning behind this conclusion. The Petitioner had submitted evidence of her academic credentials, certificates, and a job offer letter, but the Director’s decision lacked specific detail regarding why these were deemed insufficient.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted various documents, including her academic records, certificates, a job offer letter, and a credential evaluation. The evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner holds a bachelor’s degree in pharmacy, which, combined with her professional experience, is equivalent to a master’s degree. The Petitioner also provided letters of support from peers and employers attesting to her expertise and the potential impact of her proposed endeavor.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Director’s denial included several conclusory statements without detailed explanations. The Director questioned the substantial merit and national importance of the Petitioner’s endeavor and her ability to advance it. However, the denial did not provide specific reasons or detailed analysis, limiting the Petitioner’s ability to respond effectively in her appeal.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
None specified.
Business Plan:
The business plan outlined the operations of the proposed pharmaceutical company, including financial projections and the scope of services to be offered.
Advisory Letter:
Advisory letters described the Petitioner’s expertise and the impact of her proposed business on the pharmaceutical industry.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Additional documentation included academic records, professional certificates, and letters of recommendation.
Conclusion
The appeal resulted in the decision being remanded. The Director’s initial denial lacked specific reasons and detailed explanations, which limited the Petitioner’s ability to prepare a substantive appeal. The Director must issue a new decision, providing detailed explanations if the decision remains a denial.
