dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Applied Mathematics

(b)(6)
DATE: 
INRE: 
PETITION: 
FEB 19 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this. matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further· inq~iry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Direct~r, Texas Service Center, denied the .employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The inatter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. ) 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b)(2) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S;C. § 1153(b)(i), as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences and as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. At the time the petitioner filed the petition, she was a 
postdoctoral research associate at . She is now an assistant professor at 
The petitioner asserts.that an _exemption from the requirement of a job offer, 
and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director found that 
the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree, but 
not as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences. The director also found that the petitioner has not 
established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest ofthe 
United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief from counsel and several supporting exhibits. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states; in pertinent part: 
(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 claims eligibility for classification as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced 
degree and as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences. The director concluded that the oetitioner. 
whose occupation requires at least a bachelor's degree and who holds a doctorate from 
qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The director 
determmed, however, that the petitioner had not met the requirements for classification as an alien of 
exceptional ability. The director also noted that the latter finding .is moot, because it does not affect the 
petitioner's eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Counsel, on appeal, 
contests the director's conclusion that the petitioner had not eStablished exceptional ability. The 
(b)(6)
Page3 
director, however, was correct in observing that the finding was effectively moot. A discussion of the 
exceptional ability claim would not affect the final outcome of this decision, because exceptional ability 
is not a requirement for the waiver, and it would not make approval of the waiver more likely. The only 
issue in contention material to the outcome of the decision is whether the petitioner has established that 
a waiver ofthe job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely note4 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, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, published at 
56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 
29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] 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. 
In reNew York State Dept. of Transportation (NYSD01), 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 
1998), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national 
interest waiver. First, the petitioner must show that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial 
intrinsic merit. Next, the petitioner must show that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. 
Finally, the petitioner establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater 
degree than would an available United States worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. The petitioner's 
subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The intention behind the term ''prospective" is to require future 
contnbutions 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. 
The AAO also notes that the USCIS regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" 
as "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of 
endeavor. By statute, aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor . . 
certification requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, 
whether a given alien seeks classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree,' that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating 
a degree of expertise significantly above'that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
(b)(6)
Page4 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140 petition on December 27, 2011. In an accompanying statement, 
the petitioner described her latest research: 
Currently I am working on two projects. One is in acoustics, where I am identifying 
sound source terms of Lighthill's equation and applying the theoretical analysis to a 
real numerical simulation of certain types of jet nozzles to understand noise 
generation mechanism. . . . The second project I am also currently working on is 
calculating the mechanical property of heterogeneous composites in the field of 
material science .... I have been working on this project since I was in the · 
from 2007 to 2009. At .that time, the focus was more on hard composite 
materials such as solid rocket propellant or a pack of micro-sized glass beads, but 
now I am more interested in applying the methodology to soft materials with phase 
transitions such as liquid crystal elastomers, etc. · 
The petitioner then went on to describe the projects in technical detail. 
In a letter accompanying the initial filing of the petition, counsel stated that the petitioner's 
mathematical research has a broad variety of applications: 
[The petitioner's] research has been crucial to economy, environment. national 
infrastructure and health as well as the success of the NASA, the 
Department of Mathematics and the global community in that her work 
can be utilized in evaluating safety and reliability of bridges, buildings, roads and 
other infrastructures, predicting forest fires, increasing efficiency of fuel injection, 
and improving nuclear energy. 
(Counsel's emphasis; footnotes omitted). The assertion that the petitioner's work "has been crucial" 
because it "can be utilized" does not logically follow. The potential for future applications does not 
imply that the petitioner's work has, in the past, "been crucial" in those areas. Counsel's further 
assertions in this vein derive from witness letters, which the AAO will discuss below. 
With respect to the job offer requirement, counsel states:. 
[The petitioner] may not file under EB-2 through a sponsor for three additional 
reasons. First, does not, as a matter of policy, sponsor post-doctoral 
associates. Second, the inability to articulate . the requisite skills in a Labor 
Certificate is because [the petitioner's] work requires a combination of formal 
education and practical experience in mathematics. Such a combination of 
qualifications cannot be articulated in a Labor Certification. Third, Being tied to 
a single employer would. preclude Lthe oetitionerl from doine even oart-time 
consultancy with entities such as the 
(b)(6)
Page5 
as ari. independent contractor due to the facts that EB-2 self­
sponsorship andpart-time employment are precluded by the Department of Labor. 
Counsel cited no evidence to support any of the above claims. Sinl.ply going on record' without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 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)). The unsupported assertions 
of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. ·1, 3 n2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N 
Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
The petitioner has acknowledged that her postdoctoral position at is temporary, which would 
mean it is not suitable for permanent labor certification. The AAO will take this information into 
account, but the petitioner must still establish that a waiver will serve the national interest. See 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. 218 n.5. The petitioner cannot sidestep the job offer requirement simply by 
seeking immigration benefits while still undergoing short-term professional training (in this case a 
postdoctoral appointment) and not yet eligible for permanent employment in her field. 
ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, facially contradicts 
counsel's second claim in the passage quoted above. Section H of that form inquires about the 
required level of education (line 4), the requiied experience in the job (line 6), and whether there is 
"an alternate combination of education and experience that is acceptable" (line 8). The AAO, 
therefore, rejects outright counsel's assertion that "a combination of formal education and practical 
experience ... cannot be articulated in a Labor Certification." 
Regarding the possibility of "part-time consultancy with entities such as the 
and " the petitioner submitted no evidence that those entities had 
expressed any interest in retaining the petitioner's services as a part-time consultant. The entirely 
hypothetical possibility that the petitioner may pursue consulting work does not qualify the 
petitioner for the waiver .. 
Counsel cited "four Post-NYSDOT decisions" issued between 1999 and 2003, stating: "All four cases 
were approved for beneficiaries performing similar research and for whom labor certifications were 
waived." The type of research performed addresses the "intrinsic merit" prong of the national 
interest test; it does not follow that US CIS· or the AAO created blanket waivers "for beneficiaries 
performing similar research." None of the four cited decisions are published precedent decisions. 
Counsel furnished no evidence to establish' that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those 
iri. the unpublished decisions. Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c), AAO precedent decisions 
are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, but unpublished decisions are 
not similarly binding. · 
The petitioner submitted abstracts of various conference presentations and partial copies of six 
published articles that she co-authored. The petitioner also submitted partial copies of six published 
/ 
articles that contain citatiop.s to her work. Four of the six citations are self-citations by the 
(b)(6)
Page6 
petitioner's co-authors such as _ _ Self-citation is a common and 
accepted practice, but it is not evidence of wider influence. Setting aside the self-citations, the 
petitioner documented two independent citations of her work in scholarly journals. 
A printout from announced the publication of one.of the petitioner's articles. The 
piece consisted almost entirely of the article's abstract, shown in quotation marks with 
occasional interjections such as "[a]ccording to the authors ... " and "[t]he researchers concluded . 
. 
. . " The piece has no byline and offers no commentary on the significance of the article; it does 
little more than report the article's existence. 
The petitioner also submitted excerpts from an undergraduate thesis from the 
r.iting two ofthe petitioner's articles. The faculty member who oversaw the thesis, 
was also a co-author of both cited articles. As such, the thesis citations are not evidence of 
wider, independent influence. 
The petitioner submitted six witness letters in support of the petition. Five of the witnesses are on 
the faculties of universities where the petitioner has studied or trained. Professor 
.supervised the petitioner's master's thesis at South Korea. ln a letter 
dated October 22, 2009, more than two years before the petition's filing date, Prof. said little 
about the petitioner's master's thesis, but praised her subsequent doctoral thesis, stating that th~ 
petitioner 
proposed and validated new closure models for Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes 
simulations (RANS), using Large Eddy Simulation .... The instability problems has 
[sic] been of great importance for the various application[s], such as predictions of 
currents in reservoir, passage of forest fires, simulations of fuel jet injection, etc. 
stated: 
During her PhD, [the petitioner] published five papers in prestigious peer-reviewed 
scientific journals. Het PhD work can be applied to increase efficiency of fuel 
injection, helping nuclear energy generation or making safer and more reliable 
materials . used in building bridges, buildings, roads, etc. Furthermore, her recent 
· research on reducing aircraft jet noise by finding the underlying physics must be a 
great breakthrough in Acoustics. 'Her master's research is noteworthy, about the 
approximations of Reimann '[sic] Zeta function, one of the most difficult functions, 
closely related to the well-known conjecture, Reimann hypothesis. Her expertise in 
various applied mathematics fields should be highly respected. 
The central thrust of [the petitioner's] work is the statistical and mathematical 
analysis of experimental and simulation data. Her work rests on two strengths. First 
is an understanding of the scientific information principles and ideas contains [sic] 
within the data. Secondly, she has become expert in the development of numerical 
tools to allow computer-based extraction of this information. 
(b)(6)
Page? 
Prof. own credentials, as listed in his letter, indicate significant ~t~hlrP. in his field. 
Nevertheless, the outco.me ofthe waiver request hinges on the petitioner. Prof. said nothing 
about the petitioner's existing impact or influence on her field. Instead, he opined about what the 
petitioner's research "should be" and "must be." He stated that that the petitioner's ''work can be 
applied to" a number of areas, but did not indicate that others have, in fact, applied it in those ways. 
Professor , one of the petitioner's instructors during her doctoral studies at stated: 
Her PhD work ... on deriving and analyzing "Compressible multi-species multi­
phase flow models" requires strong mathematical background since it involves highly 
complex closure models including different properties of fluids such as miscibility, 
viscosity, conductivity etc. In terms ·of her background and research ability, [the 
petitioner] was a unique researcher working on this project. She contributed a lot to 
understanding the statistical behavior occurring near the interfaces between two 
fluids. [The petitioner] applied this work in prediction of forest fires behavior and 
moving blast type cell closely related to leukemia, where she showed her challenging 
and innovative research ability with leadership .... 
[The petitioner's postdoctoral] work [at has had far-reaching impact in that 
she improved the statistical tools used in the field, by inventing arid implementing a 
crucial software to apply some of her theoretical work to the actual tangible materials. 
It is greatly meaningful and amazing that the classical theories can be applied directly 
to improve our real life. This was possible only with her special research background 
and her excellence. [The petitioner's] work is not limited to the improvement ofthe 
aircraft solid fuel performance, it also contributes to improving the qualities ofhuman 
life by developing and providing more reliable composite materials for general. 
infrastructure. 
Given the petitioner's involvement in engineering projects, which by their nature involve applied 
sciences, it is not evident why the_ existence of practical applications for the petitioner's work is 
"amazing." The record d~es not show that the petitioner's application of her work to forest fires and 
cells "closely related to leukemia" extended beyond her master's thesis, or that experts in those 
fields have, in fact, applied the petitioner's fmdings. The portions of the petitioner's published work 
reproduced in the record mention neither of those things. 
Dr. senior research scientist at at the 
stated: 
During her PhD, [the petitioner] published five papers in prestigious peer-reviewed 
scientific jo_umals. Her master's work is also very impressive, which is about 
approximations of the Riemann Zeta function, which is closely related to the well­
known conjecture, Riemann hypothesis. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
As a mathematician myself working in an engineering program, I know how [the 
petitioner's] strong pure and applied mathematical background can play an important· 
role in the engineering field, making her unique. The focus of [the petitioner's] 
postdoctoral research in the center was on computing bounds for thermal-mechanical 
properties of heterogeneous composites, like solid rocket propellants, expanded 
polystyrene (EPS) concrete, etc. Since the solid rocket propellant consists of several 
·different materials, it has been known that it is almost impossible to know the exact 
properties otthe propellant. Instead, [the petitioner] was instrumental in developing 
appropriate mathematical and simulation tools to predict the upper and lower bounds 
of the various properties of the material. I strongly believe that nobody in the rocket 
center could possibly achieve the same amount of mathematical work in the same 
period of time. . . . Furthermore, her work can be utilized in evaluating safety and 
reliability of bridges, buildings, roads, etc., potentially benefiting the nation. 
As quot{xt above, some passages in letter are nearly identical to passages in Pro£ 
consistent with common authorship or at least reliance on template language. Cf 
Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding an 
immigration judge's adverse credibility determination in asylum proceedings based in part on the 
similarity of some ofthe affidavits); Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dept. ofJustice, 489 F.3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 
2007) (concluding that an immigration judge may reasonably infer that when an asylum applicant 
submits strikingly similar affidavits, the applicant is the common source). Dr. Jackson, like other 
witnesses, couched his discussion in terms of possible future applications rather than existing, 
demonstrated uses of the petitioner's work. 
Professo1 the petitioner in -.~ stated: 
[The petitioner] has a firm background in fluid mechanics and applied mathematics. 
She chose to work on the processing and analysis of large-scale direct numerical 
simulation data of a jet with a view to identifying the sources of noise and unraveling 
. the underlying physical mechanisms. This subject has recently 
gained more attention 
due to its possible applications to environmental noise reduction problems .... 
She presented some results at [two conferences], which received widespread public 
commentary for their potential impact on the field. 
She has recently submitted a paper to Physics of Fluid and is now preparing for the 
second paper related to the project. I believe her work will be a landmark 
contribution to the fundamental understanding of jet acoustics. Others agree .... 
As the second project, she chose the topic of liquid crystal elastomers (LCE) wherein 
she would extract constitutive relations from microstructure data. To that end, she 
plans to customize the methodology developed during her previous postdoctoral work 
(as the University of [sic]) . ... This unique work has 
been applied to estimate the arranged behavior of composite materials such as solid 
(b)(6)
Page9 
propellants, other infrastructure materials, etc. Her LCE work has been proposed to 
be implemented in the reduction of traffic accidents through tinted windows and in 
screens for electronic devices, among other uses. 
Prof. . also contended that the petitioner had earned "peer recognition for reducing aircraft 
noise and improving driving environments.?' He cited· no evidence, however, and provided no 
verifiable specifics to show that her work has already "reduc[ ed] aircraft noise" or "improv[ ed] 
driving environments"; elsewhere, Prof. stated only that the petitioner's ''work has been 
proposed" (by whom, Prof. did not say) for those purposes. The record does not document 
any ofthe claimed ''widespread public commentary," and Prof. did not identify the "others" 
who "agree" with the speculative claim that the petitioner's ''work will be a landmark contribution to 
the fundamental understanding of jet acoustics." Prof. letter, therefore, contains 
numerous claims that lack evidentiary support, are so vague as to be unverifiable, or both. 
The only witness who does not annear to have worked rlirectlv with the petitioner is Dr. 
an associate professor at Czech Republic. Dr. 
curriculum vitae shows that he co-autho~ed a paper with who later collaborated with 
the petitioner. Dr. met the petitioner at a 2009 conference, where he 
was truly impressed by her presentation, novelty of her theoretical developments and 
results of the work ..... 
[The petition~'s] work [at is of considerable impact not only on developing 
more reliable fuel for aircrafts, satellites, etc. but also on performance-driven 
materials design in Civil, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering in general. 
[The petitioner] is also working in reconstructing a representative unit cell (RUC) 
from a large-scale samples [sic] of real materials .... The fully three-dimensional 
approach is rare and is essential for realistic representation of real-world materials in 
computational simulations ofheterogeneous materials. 
. . . I know that this work requires a special ability -to _deal with qualitative and 
quantitative mathematical formulation, exceptional programming skills as well as 
creative inspiration for engineering problems. 
Dr. letter, dated October 17, 2009 (more than two years before the petition's filing date), 
predates her current employment at As a result, Dr. couched his letter in terms of 
potential benefits to specialized areas (such as "fundamental research on Rocket science") that the 
petitioner is no longer pursuing. 
On April24, 2012, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE). Most of the RFE concerned the 
petitioner's claim of exceptional ability in the sciences, but on the final page, the director stated: 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
[Y]ou must be able to demonstrate that. you have a degree of influence on the field 
which distinguishes you from other postdoctoral researchers with comparable 
academic or professional qualifications. Your support letters consist of attestations of 
the scientific achievements you have made in the field; however,, the record does not 
demonstrate that you are more skilled than others who perform the same or similar 
' work. While USCIS acknowledges your talent and accomplishments, the record 
lacks any demonstrable prior achievements which would prove that you will serve the 
national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker 
having the same qualifications. Consequently, please submit evidence to establish 
that your past record justifies projections of future benefit to the nation. You must 
establish the exact influence or impact your work has had on the field. 
(Emphasis in original.) In response, counsel stated that the petitioner has "developed 
methodologi~s which have been used in technology being currently used by others and which 
have vast, money-saving, health-improving applicability" (counsel's emphasis). As an example, 
counsel stated that the petitioner's ''work is used to mathematically predict •.. biological cell 
movement, especially white blood cells resulting in new kinds of anti-inflammatory therapies" 
(counsel's emphasis). Counsel identified no such therapy, and no inStitution using the petitioner's 
work in that way. The initial submission indicated only that the petitioner's master's thesis made 
such measurements possible. Referring to another example, counsel stated that "a [forest fire] 
prediction mechanism-could save fire-fighting resources and save lives." Counsel cited no evidence 
that any jurisdiction actually uses the petitioner's "prediction mechanism." The intrinsic merit of the 
petitioner's work is not in dispute, but the petitioner cannot establish the impact of her work purely 
through examples that are either facially speculative or so vague as to be unverifiable. 
With respect to the petitioner's published work, counsel stated: ''The fact that other scientists have 
cited [the petitioner's] work is also evidence that her work is being implemented by others." 
Citation is, indeed, an important benchmark of the impact of scholarly work. At the same time, such 
impact is different from the impact discussed in the preceding paragraph; scholarly references to the 
petitioner's work are_ not necessarily evidence of real-world, practical implementation of the 
-petitioner's ideas in such areas as medicine, aviation, and fire control. Strong evidence of either type 
of impact would be persuasive, for different reasons; but the petitioner has presented strong evidence 
of neither type. The petitioner submitted no new citation evidence in response to the RFE; counsel 
simply referred back to the previous submission. As noted previously, only two of the published 
citations came from outside research groups that worked with the petitioner. 
Also with respect to her published work, the petitioner submitted background documentation about 
the reputation of one of the journals that carried her articles. The overall, aggregate reputation of a 
journal, or an employer or alma mater, is not strong evidence of the reception or impact of a 
particular article in that journal, or employee of the employer, or graduate of the school. The AAO 
will not conclude impact by association when the specific evidence of the petitioner's particular 
impact is weak or nonexistent. 
(b)(6)
/ 
Page 11 
Counsel stated: "it is important to note that Dr. wrote in a letter to the 
dean that the universitf performed an 'exhaustive search of many highly qualified 
candidates; and [the petitioner] retained the top position among all the candidates'" (counsel's 
emphasis). The letter in question is a recommendation that (not, as 
counsel stated, the _ ) hire the petitioner as an assistant professor. The letter 
indicated that the petitioner was the most qualified candidate for the position, but it is routine for a 
hiring authority to identify the most qualified candidate out of a given pool of applicants. Dr. 
letter does not show that the petitioner stands out among others in her profession as a 
whole, only that she was the most qualified of those who chose to apply for a particular position at 
one university. The petitioner did not show that this letter was significant evidence of eligibility for 
the waiver, rather than a fairly standard element ofa ·routine hiring decision. 
Furthermore, did not hire the petitioner until several months after the 
petition's December 27, 2011 filing date. The date on Dr. letter, which necessarily 
predates the formal job offer, is May 4, 2012, and other witness letters dated June 2012 refer, in the 
present tense, to the petitioner's ongoing employment at 
Three other letters accompanied the response to the RFE. Dr. postdoctoral research 
associate at professed to be "astonished" by the petitioner's work on aircraft noise reduction, 
and stated: "I believe that [the petitioner's] approach to the subject is very intellectual and unique 
that distinguishes her from other researchers in the similar fields." Dr. claimed that the 
petitioner's "outstanding contributions ... have been recognized nationally and internationally," but 
cited 
no evidence to support this claim except to observe that the petitioner had attended a number of 
conferences, and that she received a travel grant to attend one of them The record does not show 
that' such travel grants are recognition for "outstanding contributions," rather than a somewhat 
routine form of financial aid for presenters who do not live near the site of a given conference. 
Dr. a consultant in acoustics and fluid mechanics who previously wor~ed for the 
, stated: 
I attended a lecture given by [the petitioner] on her work and was fascinated. One of 
the most difficult problems in the field of aeroacoustics has been understanding the 
Lighthill quadrupole source which is all-important in jet engine noise production. 
[The petitioner] has developed an interesting and potentially very useful approach of 
expanding Lighthill's source into ten separate/ identifiable sourc~s and looking at the 
importance· of each through cross-correlation of the sources with the farfield sound. 
Since that time I have been working closely with [the petitioner] to further develop 
my own understanding and to consider how the insights developed by [the petitioner] 
might be utilized to bring about reduction of aircraft noise. 
[The petitioner's] work is ground-breaking and has been submitted for publication to 
the one of the most prestigious journals in the field, 
which attests to the uniqueness of her contributions to the field of aeroacoustics. 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
Dr. assertion that the petitioner's "insights ... might be utilized to bring about reduction of 
aircraft noise" contradicts earlier claims suggesting that. unnamed parties have already implemented 
the petitioner's ideas in this way. The record contains no evidence that the journal named above 
actually accepted the petitioner's article for publication; Its mere submission does not "attest[] toJhe 
uniqueness of [the petitioner's] contributions"; it attests only to its authors' opinion that the material 
is suitable for publication in that journal. 
is head of research and infrastructure at 
New York, described as a "hedge fund that uses complex mathematical models to analyze 
and execute trades." Dr. stated: 
I have known [the petitioner] since summer 2007 when she was fmishing her Ph.D. 
degree at ... Since thert, [the petitioner] and I have had 
numerou~ exchanges on a variety of mathematical projects in various scientific fields. 
Recently, [the petitioner] has visited in December 2011 to 
hold a seminar ... I attended. with colleagues of our firm. In the seminar, she 
introduced two topics, one in Acoustics and the other in Material Science. . . . [The 
petitioner's] presentation was very impressive since I have rarely seen a researcher 
whose research interest broadly encompass ... such different fields .... 
Even though [the petitioner] and I are not working on the same fields, I and my 
colleagues have been inspired by her approach and methodology .... Obviously her 
insights would be of great interest for a company like ours. 
Dr. offered general praise for the petitioner's abilities as being "beneficial to any place she 
chooses to work for," but identified no specific contributions that have had a measurable or 
verifiable impact in her field. 
The director denied the petition on August 30, 2012, stating: "While your support letters laud your 
Ph.D. work and your recent work on jet acoustics, they do not explain how your work has resulted in 
your international recognition." The director also stated that the petitioner's citation evidence was 
lacking. 
On appeal, counsel observes that "'international recognition' is not a requirement under the category 
sought." This assertion is true, but it is equally true that the petitioner submitted a letter from Dr. 
who claimed that the petitioner's "outstanding contributions . 
. . have been 
recognized nationally and internationally." When the petitioner signed the Form I-140 petition, she 
certified under penalty of perjury that the petition and the evidence submitted with it are all true and 
correct. Therefore, by introducing Dr. claim into the record, the petitioner has effectively 
attested under penalty of perjury that the claim is true. The petitioner cannot (either directly or 
through surrogates) claim "international recognition" in an attempt to secure immigration benefits, 
only to disclaim any responsibility to support or document that claim. Doubt cast on any aspect of 
the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). It 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. !d. at 582, 591-92. 
Counsel states that the petitioner's work ha8 been "extensively cited." Counsel points to "a lengthy 
list of citations showing seven publications [and]15 citations to her work" (counsel's emphasis). As 
noted previously, before the denial of the petition the record contained evidence of only six 
published citations to her work, four of which were self-citations by co-authors. The updated list 
submitted on appeal includes seven self-citations by the petitioner and/or her co-authors, as well as 
three citations by only one degree removed from the petitioner through There 
remain only five citations from apparently independent research groups. Two of those five claimed 
citations are dated 2012, after the petition's December 2011 filing date, and the petitioner did not 
submit documentary evidence (such as photocopies of the articles or printouts from a citation 
database) to show that the newly claimed citations exist. 
In discussing the petitioner's published work and it~ impact, counsel makes no further mention of the 
article that the petitioner had previously submitted for publication in the 
Absent any evidence that the journal accepted the article, there is no basis to conclude 
that the jo_umal's editors shared the opinions of counsel and the petitioner's witnesses regarding the 
merits ofthat article. 
Counsel quotes from some of the submitted witness letters, and the petitioner submits two further 
letters on appeal. Professor of the· 
attended a 2010 presentation by the petitioner. Prof. discussed the petitioner's work on 
modeling the properties of "heterogeneous particulate composites": 
This homogenization problem has been a long standing quest in our field since it 
requires expertise in multiple subjects. . . . [The petitioner] has exceptional 
knowledge of the leading edge of the research enteq)rise coupled with practical skills, 
a very rare combination. Her work strives to obtain better images of materials with 
less noise, using rigorous .mathematical modeling and sophisticated statistics. Her 
advances in the statistical morphology of real or simulated solid materials is the state 
of the art and directly applicable to robust materials for infrastructure applications. 
In the letter quoted above, Prof. offers a subjective opinion of the value of the petitioner's 
work, but no articulated idea of how, exactly, the petitioner's work has advanced the field. 
Dr. _. associate vice president of research and academic affairs at 
discussed the petitioner's role at that university. As noted previously, this employment 
began several months after the petition's filing date. Even then, Dr. _ letter does little 
more than declare that the petitioner was the best-qualified applicant for the position. This 
conclusion is self-evident, because if the petitioner were not the best qualified applicant then the 
university would have had little incentive to· hire her. Dr. · states that the petitioner "is 
(b)(6)
"' ... 
Page 14 
critical to the continued success ofth€: mathematics program" but does not 
elaborate except to state that to recruit a replacement would consume time and resources. . . 
The Board of lminigration Appeals {BIA) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
cases). The BIA also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." /d. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have received consideration 
above. 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. /d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is 
not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. See id. at 795; see 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 {BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). See also Matter.of Soffici, 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)). 
The letters discussed above primarily contain bare assertions that the petitioner's work has been 
influential ·and has attracted widespread attention, without specifically identifying verifiable 
examples of how the petitioner's efforts have influenced the field. Throughout this proceeding, the 
documentary evidence ofrecord has failed to match the claims of counsel and various witnesses with 
respect to the importance of the petitioner's various contributions. 
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 labor 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.