Date of Decision: June 6, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Pharmaceutical Research
Petitioner Information
Profession: Pharmaceutical Research Scientist
Field: Pharmaceutical Development for Cancer and Gastritis Treatments
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree Professional: The petitioner was recognized as having an advanced degree, qualifying her for EB-2 classification.
Criteria Not Met:
National Interest Waiver: The initial decision was revoked based on alleged misrepresentation of facts critical to demonstrating the national interest waiver, specifically related to her professional achievements and impact.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue her research in developing pharmaceuticals to treat cancer and gastritis, focusing on innovations that could potentially lead to significant health benefits.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
Her work was initially deemed of substantial merit due to its potential impact on health care, particularly in treating critical illnesses such as cancer and gastritis. However, the revocation raised questions about the authenticity of her contributions and the scope of their impact.
Supporting Evidence:
Educational Credentials: Demonstrated with a degree equivalent to a U.S. Doctor of Medicine.
Professional Achievements: Initially claimed significant contributions to the field with patents and influential research, which were later contested.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The revocation was based on discrepancies between her claimed and actual achievements, notably in terms of patents held and the influence of her published work.
Supporting Documentation
Business Plan:
Detailed the structure and goals of her ongoing research projects and their potential impact on medical treatments.
Letters of Intent:
Indicated collaborations with medical institutions and research bodies, which were called into question after the revocation.
Advisory Letter:
Provided endorsements of her qualifications and past contributions, the authenticity of which were later challenged.
Conclusion
The appeal led to a remand for further review and a new decision consistent with a full re-evaluation of the evidence. The petitioner’s claims about her professional achievements were found to need more rigorous verification to determine their truthfulness and relevance to the national interest. The decision underscores the importance of veracity in claims made during petition processes and the implications of discrepancies on the outcome of national interest waivers.
