Date of Decision: March 22, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Healthcare IT and Product Innovation
Petitioner Information
Profession: Vice President of Product Innovation
Field: Healthcare IT and Product Innovation
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
The Beneficiary possesses a master’s degree in business administration, which meets the educational requirement.
The Petitioner provided several experience letters to support the Beneficiary’s qualifications.
Criteria Not Met:
The Beneficiary did not meet the 84 months of qualifying experience required for the position.
The Petitioner did not establish the ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onward.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Beneficiary was proposed to be employed as a Vice President of Product Innovation at the healthcare IT software company. The role involved leading product development, commercialization, and pilot launches of healthcare analytics products, and managing cross-functional teams in a startup environment.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The substantial merit and national importance of the Beneficiary’s proposed endeavor were acknowledged in terms of developing innovative healthcare IT solutions.
However, the specific evidence provided did not adequately demonstrate that the Beneficiary met the required experience criteria.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted several letters documenting the Beneficiary’s work experience. However, these letters revealed inconsistencies and did not meet the detailed requirements specified in the labor certification.
The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient regulatory-required evidence such as federal tax returns, annual reports, or audited financial statements to demonstrate the ability to pay the proffered wage.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The record showed overlapping employment periods and discrepancies in the Beneficiary’s documented work experience, weakening the overall evidence of qualifying experience.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not provided in sufficient detail to establish the Beneficiary’s eligibility.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Not provided.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Federal income tax returns, employment letters, and an affidavit from the Beneficiary were provided, but found lacking in necessary detail and consistency.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to establish that the Beneficiary met the required 84 months of qualifying experience and failed to sufficiently document the ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onwards. Despite the Beneficiary’s educational qualifications, the discrepancies and insufficient documentation led to the final denial.
