Date of Decision: April 4, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Biochemistry
Petitioner Information
Profession: Research Scientist
Field: Biochemistry
Nationality: Indian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Original Contributions of Major Significance: The petitioner has made significant contributions to the field of biochemistry, evidenced by multiple peer-reviewed articles and recognition by the scientific community.
- High Salary or Other Remuneration: The petitioner receives a salary that benchmarks well above the prevailing wage for the role, indicating exceptional ability.
Criteria Not Met:
- Membership in Associations in the Field: The petitioner failed to show membership in prestigious associations which require outstanding achievements.
- Judge of the Work of Others: There was insufficient evidence of the petitioner’s role in judging the work of peers in the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to continue research on innovative drug delivery mechanisms which could significantly impact the treatment of chronic diseases.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The proposed research was recognized for its potential to lead to groundbreaking treatments, thus serving substantial merit and national importance.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided extensive documentation including research publications, reference letters from distinguished colleagues, and awards. However, the appeal was denied due to procedural shortcomings and inadequate demonstration of certain criteria.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The appeal lacked consistency in demonstrating the application of the petitioner’s work to industry standards, which weakened the case.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not applicable.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Detailed letters from academic peers endorsing the petitioner’s research and its importance to the field.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Research articles and awards documentation which underscored the petitioner’s contributions to biochemistry.
Conclusion
The final determination was to deny the appeal. The AAO concluded that while the petitioner has substantial qualifications and has made significant contributions, the motion to reopen and reconsider did not introduce new facts nor correct any legal errors in the initial decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
