Date of Decision: May 3, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Cardiovascular Disease Research
Petitioner Information
Profession: Associate Research Scientist
Field: Clinical Research in Cardiovascular Disease
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit: The petitioner’s proposed endeavor in clinical research on cardiovascular diseases has substantial merit, supported by ongoing work funded by the National Institutes of Health and the potential impact on the development of pharmaceutical treatments for cardiovascular diseases.
National Importance: Upon remand, the evidence must be reassessed to accurately reflect the petitioner’s contribution to clinical research rather than economic benefits in the housing market, as erroneously cited in the initial decision.
Criteria Not Met:
Detailed Description: Initially, the petition lacked a detailed description of the proposed endeavor and corresponding documentary evidence of its substantial merit.
Impact Beyond Economic Benefit: The Director’s initial evaluation incorrectly linked the endeavor’s impact to economic benefits in an unrelated sector (housing market).
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner aims to continue clinical research in the mechanism and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. This endeavor is integral to advancing medical knowledge and developing effective pharmaceutical interventions for cardiovascular conditions.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s research is crucial for public health, particularly in advancing treatments for cardiovascular diseases, which are a leading cause of mortality. The endeavor’s substantial merit is acknowledged through detailed explanations of ongoing research projects and their funding sources, including the National Institutes of Health.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided robust supporting evidence, including letters from scientific advisors detailing the significance of the research and its potential impact on public health and pharmaceutical advancements.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor
The initial decision contained an error by associating the petitioner’s research with maximizing sales in the housing market, which does not align with the actual scope of the proposed clinical research on cardiovascular diseases. This inconsistency necessitated a remand for proper reevaluation.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Provided
Letters from advisors and collaborators emphasized the research’s importance and the petitioner’s qualifications.
Business Plan: Not applicable
Advisory Letter:
Advisory letters highlighted the significance of the petitioner’s ongoing and proposed research in cardiovascular disease treatment.
Any other supporting documentation:
Additional documents, such as funding confirmations and detailed research proposals, substantiated the petitioner’s claims of substantial merit and national importance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Remanded for further evaluation
Reasoning:
The decision was remanded due to errors in the initial assessment, specifically regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The petitioner’s work in clinical research for cardiovascular diseases has substantial merit and potential national importance, warranting a re-evaluation under the correct framework.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
