Date of Decision: March 22, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Regulatory Research
Petitioner Information
Profession: Regulatory Research Consultant
Field: Regulatory Research
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: The petitioner demonstrated their work in regulatory research has substantial intrinsic merit.
Criterion 2: The petitioner’s work is national in scope and contributes to the regulatory frameworks essential for public health.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: The petitioner’s documentation contained inconsistencies regarding educational qualifications and professional contributions.
Criterion 2: Claims of research and publication contributions were not sufficiently corroborated with supporting evidence.
Key Points from the Decision:
Inconsistencies and Misrepresentations:
Discrepancies in the petitioner’s educational qualifications and professional claims.
Potential misrepresentations about involvement in oncology research and publication records.
Proposed Endeavor
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor involves advancing regulatory research to improve public health frameworks and contribute to the development of effective regulatory policies in the biomedical field.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s work in regulatory research has substantial merit and national importance as it aims to enhance public health by ensuring the safety and efficacy of biomedical products.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided letters of intent, advisory letters, and a business plan, but there were issues with the authenticity and consistency of the documents.
Key quotes or references: “My research work as part of [previous employer]’s global oncology team focused on the development of breakthrough oncology therapies.”
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner’s resume and letters contained conflicting information about educational achievements and professional experience.
Unsupported claims of research and publications in the field of oncology raised doubts about the petitioner’s actual contributions.
Supporting Documentation:
Letters of Intent:
Provided, but with inconsistencies in the letterhead and authenticity.
Business Plan:
Submitted, detailing the petitioner’s proposed contributions to regulatory research.
Advisory Letter:
Included but questioned for authenticity and consistency.
Any other supporting documentation:
Additional documents provided, but not all were verified for accuracy.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Remanded
Reasoning:
The decision to remand was based on the need for the petitioner to resolve discrepancies and provide verifiable evidence supporting their claims of educational and professional achievements.
