dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Actinide Chemistry And Environmental Science

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal pnvac) 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIN 07 243 50049 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
V 
Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as an assistant research professor. The petitioner asserts that an 
exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of an alien employment certification, is in the 
national interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner had not established 
that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United 
States. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, the 
petitioner has not overcome the director's valid concerns. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part that: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -- 
(A) In general. -- Visas shall be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer. 
(i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to 
be in the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) 
that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be 
sought by an employer in the United States. 
The petitioner holds a Ph.D. from Washington State University. The petitioner's occupation falls 
within the pertinent regulatory definition of a profession. The petitioner thus qualifies as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue is whether the petitioner has 
established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus an alien employment certification, is in 
the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, Congress 
did not provide a specific definition of the phrase, "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest 
by increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55,101 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1 989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 
(IMMACT), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), states, in pertinent part: 
The Service believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as 
possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must 
make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national 
benefit" [required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest 
with the alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 2 15, 2 17- 18 (Comm'r. 1998) (hereinafter 
"NYSDOT"), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. Id at 21 7. Next, it must be shown that the proposed benefit will be national 
in scope. Id. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve the 
national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same 
minimum qualifications. Id. at 2 1 7- 1 8. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges onprospective national benefit, it clearly 
must be established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national 
interest. Id. at 219. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the 
national interest cannot suffice to establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term 
"prospective" is used here to require future contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry 
of an alien with no demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would 
thus be entirely speculative. Id. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, actinide chemistry 
and environmental science, and that the proposed benefits of his work, nuclear waste management, 
environmental protection and closing the nuclear fuel cycle, would be national in scope. It remains, 
then, to determine whether the petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an 
available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. 
Eligibility for the waiver must rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the position 
sought. In other words, we generally do not accept the argument that a given project is so important 
that any alien qualified to work on this project must also qualify for a national interest waiver. Id. at 
218. Moreover, it cannot suffice to state that the alien possesses usehl skills, or a "unique 
Page 4 
background." Special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national 
interest threshold. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States 
is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. at 221. 
At issue is whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such unusual significance that the 
petitioner merits the special benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa 
classification he seeks. By seeking an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof. 
A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the 
field as a whole. Id. at 219, n. 6. In evaluating the petitioner's achievements, we note that original 
innovation, such as demonstrated by a patent, is insufficient by itself. Whether the specific 
innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 221, n. 7. 
In addition to submitting his articles and letters from colleagues, which will be addressed below, the 
petitioner submitted (1) evidence of level three awards issued to him in China in 1990, 1997 and 1998; 
(2) evidence of travel grants: (3) evidence of his membershir, in Sigma Xi and the American Chemical " 2.r w 
ACS (4) evidence that his colleagues at Washington State University, and 
&w requested that he review manuscripts for potential publication in Radiochimica Acta, 
Solvent Extraction and Ion Exchange and Talanta and (5) an invitation to review a manuscript for 
publication in the Journal of Alloys and Compounds. 
The record contains no evidence regarding how many level three awards were issued by the China 
Nuclear Industrial Ministry in 1990, 1997 and 1998 or other evidence regarding the significance of 
these awards. The travel grant was awarded by the Graduate Studies Committee at Washington State 
University and appears limited to students. Regardless, recognition from government entities or 
professional organizations falls under the regulatory criterion for aliens of exceptional ability at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), a classification that normally requires an approved alien employment 
certification. We cannot conclude that meeting one criterion, or even the requisite three criteria, for that 
classification warrants a waiver of that requirement in the national interest. Id. at 21 8,222. 
The record contains no evidence regarding the membership requirements for ACS. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits evidence that Sigma Xi requires a "noteworthy achievement as an original 
investigator in a field of pure or applied science or engineering." The petitioner does not submit 
evidence regarding how Sigma Xi defines "noteworthy achievement." Regardless, even if the 
petitioner's Sigma Xi membership was indicative of a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field, such memberships fall under a second criterion for aliens of 
exceptional ability set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). Once again, we cannot conclude that 
meeting two criteria, or even the requisite three criteria, for that classification warrants a finding that the 
alien employment certification normally required for that classification should be waived in the national 
interest. Id. at 2 18,222. 
As stated above, the majority of the requests for the petitioner to review manuscripts for potential 
publication are from colleagues at Washington State University and cannot establish the petitioner's 
reputation beyond the institution where he works. While the petitioner submitted a single peer-review 
request from someone not clearly affiliated with Washington State University, the peer review process, 
which requires a peer review of every manuscript submitted for publication to one of the hundreds of 
thousands of peer reviewed scientific journals in the world, cannot set the petitioner apart from other 
qualified members of his field without evidence that the journal boasts a small, elite group of peer 
reviewers. The record in this case does not contain such evidence. 
As stated above, the petitioner also submitted reference letters. All but one of the initial letters were 
from the petitioner's close circle of colleagues. On appeal, the petitioner submits more independent 
reference letters. We will consider these letters in detail. At the outset, we note that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 
1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as 
to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS may even give less weight to 
an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. 
Id. at 795; see also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of generic 
"contributions" and positive response in the field are less persuasive than letters that provide specific 
examples of how the petitioner has influenced the field. In addition, letters from independent 
references who were previously aware of the petitioner through his reputation and who have applied 
his work are the most persuasive. 
The petitioner worked as a visiting scientist with the research group headed by at the 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) from 1999 through 2001. The petitioner continued 
there as an intern while pursuing his Ph.D. at Washington State University. Upon receiving his Ph.D., - 
the petitioner began working as a research associate at and was working 
there as an associate research professor in the laboratory of when the petition was 
filed. 
In general, asserts that there is a lack of scientists with the petitioner's broad knowledge in 
multi-disciplinary subjects including actinide, environmental and analytical chemistry. It cannot 
suffice, however, to state that the alien possesses useful skills, or a "unique background." Special or 
unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national interest threshold. The issue of 
whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Labor. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. 
More specifically, asserts that the petitioner worked on "a rather difficult but very important 
research project, studying the chemical behavior of chromium in the high-level nuclear wastes." 
explains that chromium is a problematic element of nuclear waste because it deteriorates the 
quality of the waste, making disposal expensive. states that the petitioner's data "have 
provided much better understanding of the chemical behavior of chromium under alkaline conditions 
and helped to develop the strategies to reduce/remove chromium fiom the waste sludges." while= 
notes that this research has been published in prestigious journals, he concludes only that 
significant reduction of cost and a decrease of hazards in waste management "could be achieved" based - 
on the petitioner's results. 
asserts that the petitioner investigated and resolved the presence of polynuclear metal 
oxidehydroxides under alkaline and environmental conditions of pH, which "have not been extensively 
investigated in the past in part because their characterization is so extremely challenging that most 
experienced scientists have avoided attacking the problem."further asserts that the petitioner 
then went on to characterize actinide complexes with gluconic acid, which can interact with polyvalent 
metal ions in a variety of quite complex modes. As part of this project, according to the 
petitioner "elected to work with transuranic radionuclides that represent one of the greatest 
radiotoxicity hazards associated with the management of wastes fiom nuclear power production." 
concludes that the petitioner provided unique insights in this system. does not provide 
examples of how this work is being applied in the nuclear industry. 
an Emeritus Senior Scientist at LBNL, explains the importance of understanding 
temperature effects on actinide complexation with organic ligands in predicting the actinide behavior of 
processing nuclear waste and asserts that the petitioner's research in this area provided valuable 
information, "greatly aid[ing] in establishing waste treatment strategies." does not 
identi@ any nuclear waste treatment guidelines, enacted or proposed, that utilize the petitioner's results. 
an associate professor at the University of Padova in Italy and a former 
collea ue and coauthor of the petitioner at LBNL, provides similar information. Specifically, 
d asserts that while at LBNL, the petitioner "generated valuable thermodynamic data for 
actinide complexation with a simple organic ligand, the acetate ion, at varying temperatures." 
concludes that these data "provide a good reference for predicting actinide behavior in the 
presence of other carboxylate ligands." Once again, does not explain how this work is 
being utilized in the field. 
asserts that the petitioner's "diverse background in chemistry and engineering are unique and 
invaluable to the field of f-element chemistry." She subsequently asserts that the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has reported ticongress that there is a need in the United 
States for more trained personnel in the nuclear energy production sector. As stated above, however, it 
cannot suffice to state that the alien possesses useful skills, or a "unique background." Special or 
unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national interest threshold. The issue of 
whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Labor. Id. at 22 1. 
Page 7 
further asserts that the petitioner is a "leader in the field of actinide chemistry" based on 
his ability to resolve x-ray absorption spectra to directly determine bonding information between 
f-elements and organic complexants. She states that the petitioner "has coupled x-ray absorption 
spectroscopy and mass spectrometry with other more common types of spectroscopy such as nuclear 
magnetic resonance to unequivocall~ identify multiple species in solution that have confounded our 
understand[ing] of actinide'solution-chemistry for decades.', concludes that this work "is 
not only directly related to providing a scientific basis for radioactive waste disposal, but also to 
a fundamental science basis for closing the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle through the Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership and any other advanced nuclear fuel cycles that the U.S. might pursue in 
the future." While we do not contest that the petitioner is pursuing a valuable line of research, all 
research, to receive funding and be accepted for publication, must offer useful and beneficial 
information adding to the general pool of knowledge. does not explain how the 
petitioner's research with f-elements has already impacted the field. 
then discusses the petitioner's current research on the coordination chemistry of f-elements 
with nitrogen-donor chelates such as DTPA. On appeal, affirms that the petitioner played 
a leading role on his Ph.D. and postdoctoral research. While .c discusses the importance of 
this area of research and asserted in her first letter that the petitioner's approaches are "pioneering," 
she does not explain how this work is already impacting the field. On appeal, an 
assistant professor at Clemson University, asserts that his own research has been influenced by the 
petitioner's Ph.D. research. We note thatcompleted his postdoctoral research at LBNL 
while the petitioner was an intern there. The record contains no evidence that had cited 
the petitioner's work as of the date of filing. 
asserts that the petitioner's research at Washington State University combined structural 
techniques, providing a useful tool to resolve the details of the coordination modes, and gives reliable 
resources to predict the complexation properties." does not identify any independent 
laboratory using the petitioner's combination of techniques. 
, a senior research scientist at the Pacific Northwest national Laboratory (PNNL), 
primarily discusses the importance of the petitioner's area of research and the need for trained 
personnel in this area. As stated above, however, we generally do not accept the argument that a 
given project is so important that any alien qualified to work on this project must also qualify for a 
national interest waiver. Id. at 21 8. In addition, the issue of whether similarly-trained workers are 
available in the U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. at 221. m~ 
concludes that the petitioner's results at LBNL "provide a better understanding of the behavior 
of some essential actinides and other problematic elements in the waste storage and the further 
treatment processes." does not provide exam les of treatment guidelines, enacted or 
proposed, that derive from the petitioner's work. d curriculum vitae lists as one of 
his postdoctoral associates from 1996 through 1998. 
Page 8 
On appeal, the petitioner submits additional letters purporting to demonstrate his influence on 
independent researchers. 1 of the Chemical and materials 
Sciences Division at PNNL, asserts that the petitioner's work was influential at PNNL, particularly 
their modeling work with respect to other cr(111) related environmental systems. The record contains 
an article coauthored b that does cite the petitioner's work. The citing article, however, 
is coauthored by d. This self-citation by - does not demonstrate the petitioner's 
influence beyond his immediate circle of collaborators. 
a professor at Southwest University in China, asserts that his group "has 
heavily relied" on the petitioner's research. Specifically, explains that his group used the 
chromium I11 (Cr(II1)) oligomer preparation procedure to successfully obtain concentrated oligomer- 
DNA binding molecules with high efficiency. According to - his group also used the 
petitioner's structural studies for CR(II1) oligomers as a basis for a design of the tertiary complex 
(oligomer-DNA-TOPO) in the interfacial region of H201CC14 system by using a synergistic ligand, 
TOP0 to replace Cr(II1) hydrated water molecules. The record includes an article coauthored by 
that does cite a 2002 article coauthored by the petitioner and five other authors at various 
institutions. The citing article states that their preparation of CrHO was similar to the petitioner's 
report. While not determinative, we note that the petitioner performed the cited work under the 
supervision of prior to entering the Ph.D. program at Washington State University and his 
name is the fourth author among the six authors. Regardless, we do not question that the petitioner's 
work has applications in his field. As stated above, it can be presumed that research, in order to 
qualify for funding and publication, must provide original and useful results. We are not persuaded 
that this single letter from an independent research team using the petitioner's research is evidence of 
his influence on the field as a whole. 
As stated above, the petitioner also submitted his published articles and evidence of his presentations. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a self-serving list 
of citations. The director concluded that this evidence was not supported in the record, but did confirm 
a limited number of citations on the Internet. The director then concluded that the petitioner's citation 
record was not indicative of an influence on the field as a whole. On appeal, the petitioner submits 
evidence of citations. This evidence reflects that the petitioner's articles have not been widely cited 
individually. Specifically, none of the petitioner's articles had been individually cited more than seven 
times and most of the articles had been cited much less than seven times. We concur with the director 
that this level of citation is not indicative of the petitioner's influence on the field as a whole. While we 
recognize that citations are not the only evidence that can demonstrate an alien's impact in the field, for 
the reasons discussed above, the remaining evidence is not persuasive. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding, 
must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every 
researcher who obtains a Ph.D. or is working with a government grant inherently serves the national 
Page 9 
interest to an extent that justifies a waiver of the job offer requirement. The record does not establish 
that the petitioner's work has been influential in the field as a whole. 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved alien employment certification will be in 
the national interest of the United States. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. $ 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
This denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States employer 
accompanied by an alien employment certification certified by the Department of Labor, appropriate 
supporting evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.