Date of Decision: May 9, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Pharmaceutical Research and Development
Petitioner Information
Profession: Quality Control Chemist
Field: Analytical Chemistry
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Ability to Pay Proffered Wage:
The petitioner provided new evidence demonstrating the ability to pay the proffered wage, which led to a partial reopening of the case.
Criteria Not Met:
Educational Qualifications:
The beneficiary did not meet the minimum educational requirement of a master’s degree in chemistry or analytical chemistry, as specified in the labor certification. The evaluations submitted equated the beneficiary’s combined degrees to a U.S. bachelor’s degree in chemistry, not a master’s degree.
Equivalent Educational Credentials:
The beneficiary did not possess the required postgraduate diploma or other equivalent educational credentials to qualify as having a U.S. master’s degree in chemistry.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a quality control chemist to conduct research and development in the pharmaceutical industry, focusing on maintaining and improving quality standards.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The beneficiary’s role in quality control for pharmaceutical research and development holds substantial merit. However, the petition was initially denied due to the beneficiary not meeting the educational requirements outlined in the labor certification.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted multiple credential evaluations and other related documents. However, these evaluations concluded that the beneficiary’s education was equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s degree in chemistry, which does not meet the labor certification’s requirement of a master’s degree.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
There were inconsistencies in the educational qualifications of the beneficiary. The evaluations did not support the claim that the beneficiary’s combined degrees were equivalent to a U.S. master’s degree, leading to the denial of the motion to reopen fully and the motion to reconsider.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letters:
Not applicable.
Any other supporting documentation:
The petitioner submitted additional credential evaluations and supporting materials, but these did not provide new facts or sufficient evidence to overturn the previous decision regarding the beneficiary’s educational qualifications.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The motion to reopen was granted in part concerning the petitioner’s ability to pay the proffered wage. However, it was denied in part, and the motion to reconsider was denied regarding the beneficiary’s educational qualifications. The petitioner did not demonstrate that the beneficiary meets the required educational criteria for the EB-2 classification as specified in the labor certification.
Reasoning:
The evidence provided did not adequately prove that the beneficiary’s education met the requirements for the advanced degree professional classification. While the petitioner successfully demonstrated the ability to pay the proffered wage, the educational qualifications of the beneficiary were insufficient to meet the criteria outlined in the labor certification. Consequently, the petition remains denied based on the beneficiary’s educational qualifications.
