This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner, described as a regulatory research consultant, claimed contributions to oncology drug development and regulatory affairs work for a pharmaceutical company, asserting her expertise was significant to the U.S. national interest.
Field: regulatory affairs / pharmaceutical research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“We also note concerns with the recommendation letters.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“she did not provided a credible or logical explanation as to why she would include [the school] with a June 2015 date on her resume”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“we were unable to corroborate her claims regarding her publications.”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
This decision does not reach the merits of the NIW prongs; it is a revocation case remanded because the Director's Notice of Intent to Revoke and subsequent decision failed to adequately address the Petitioner's rebuttal and additional derogatory evidence (inconsistent resume claims about a PhD program, unsupported/uncorroborated research and publication claims, discrepancies between resume and prior nonimmigrant visa applications, and irregularities in recommendation letters and agency letterhead). The AAO instructs the Director to issue a new NOIR, address possible willful material misrepresentation under INA 212(a)(6)(C), and re-adjudicate the NIW question under the legacy NYSDOT framework (since the petition was filed and approved before Matter of Dhanasar).
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- Matter of Ho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's NOIR and revocation failed to adequately address petitioner's rebuttal and additional derogatory evidence (unverified conference, inconsistent letters, contradictory employment history), requiring remand for a proper NOIR and misrepresentation determination.
Ensure all record evidence (resumes, letters, employment history) is internally consistent and independently verifiable; unresolved inconsistencies can derail even an approved petition upon review.
vague
public_health · field_advancement
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution