dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Biochemistry

Identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
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 
DATE: FEB 22 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. § 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 inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
C1~_h 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a researcher in biochemistry. The petitioner is currently a visiting 
research associate at Michigan State University (MSU), East Lansing. 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 of 
the professions holding an advanced degree, but 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 additional exhibits. 
Section 203(b) ofthe 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) WaiverofJob 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 director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the 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 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, lOtst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Page 3 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), 
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. 
Matter a/New York State Dept. a/Transportation, 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. N ext, the petitioner must show that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. 
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. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it clearly must be established 
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 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. 
The AAO also notes that the regulation at 8 C.F.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. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on July 30, 2010. In an introductory statement, counsel 
stated: 
[The petitioner's] work targets the explanation of molecular structures that are 
essential to developing pharmaceutical treatments for many antibiotic resistant 
infectious diseases. . . . Her published articles have generated international 
recognition and elite ratings from the selective Faculty of 1000 as well as a 
considerable number of independent citations .... Collectively, her published work 
has been independently cited twenty-three (23) times in outstanding journals .... 
Her articles have drawn considerable attention from many international experts in the 
United States and abroad .... 
[The petitioner's] 2008 publication in the RNA journal was rated as a "Must-Read" by 
the Faculty of 1000, an elite panel of scientists that reviews thousands of medical and 
scientific articles published every year and selectively assesses their significance .... 
[The petitioner's] consistent breakthroughs warrant the conclusion that she is destined 
to continue making substantial contributions to similar research endeavors in the 
United States in the future. 
(Emphasis in original). The petitioner submitted copies of three published articles, and (through 
counsel) claimed that three additional articles were in preparation. The petitioner also documented 
17 conference presentations. 
To illustrate the impact of her published work, the petitioner documented 23 independent citations of 
her work, with three articles showing four, six and 14 citations, respectively. (The petitioner also 
documented a self-citation by a coauthor.) The petitioner submitted no evidence to show how these 
citation rates compare to those of other articles in the petitioner's specialty. Copies of some of the 
citing articles do not readily distinguish the petitioner's work from other cited works. The citing 
authors often cited the petitioner's work collectively with other articles. For example, a 2006 article 
in the by contains this passage: "\{Is contributions are 
d d . I I' d I 3,242561-65" I h' . sequence context - epen ent, partlCU ar y m regar to stems versus oops. " ntis mstance, 
the petitioner's article (number 64 in the bibliography) is one of eight articles cited in support ofthe 
quoted sentence. Several of the other cited articles date from well before the petitioner's article. 
A printout from the "Faculty of 1000" database rated one of the petitioner's articles a "Must Read" 
with an "FIOOO Factor" of 6.0. Of the nine other articles found under the search terms 
"conformationally AND restricted," seven showed FIOOO Factors of3.0, one showed a factor of6.0, 
and one, 6.7. The petitione~ound documentation explaining the FIOOO Factor. 
The printout indicates that ____ evaluated and selected the petitioner's article, but 
the record does not contain the evaluation or any statement from the evaluator. 
Several witness letters accompanied the petition. who supervised the 
petitioner's doctoral studies at Wayne State University (WSU), Detroit, Michigan, stated: 
[The petitioner] came to my research laboratory in 1999 with substantial expertise in 
bio-organic chemistry .... As a graduate research assistant ... , her research focused 
on comparing the effects of pseudouridine on the structure and stability of ribosomal 
RNA in bacteria and human. She worked independently and effectively in this 
original research project. The ultimate goal of her research was to understand the 
significance of modified nucleotides in ribosomal RNA, their role in protein 
synthesis, and to compare ribosomal RNA structures between bacteria and humans. 
This in tum will advance the development of next-generation antibiotics. 
Page 5 
... Her structural and biochemical comparison studies showed that helix 69 is a new 
ideal drug-target site for antibiotics. . . . Her work is going to generate new 
investigations that will lead to the development of new drugs, potentially benefiting 
millions of patients in [the] United States. 
Discussing the same project described above, associate professor at 
WSU, stated that the petitioner "has made outstanding contributions to this project. In particular, she 
has innovatively identified possible new antibiotic sites by performing biophysical and biochemical 
comparisons between bacteria and humans." deemed the petitioner "a pioneering 
researcher studying the eukaryotic ribosome sequence structure and stability in detail, revealing 
similarities and differences in the helix 69 between bacteria and humans." 
work, 
the petitioner's current work at MSU. Regarding that 
associate professor at MSU, stated: 
[The petitioner] came to my laboratory in 2006 with substantial expertise in the bio­
organic chemistry of nucleotides and in the general biophysical characterization of 
RNA oligomers .... 
She is playing a key role in a ... project on nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) 
spectroscopic studies of the role of conformational dynamics in RNA catalysis, 
including both methods development and applications to the lead-dependent 
ribozyme, the hairpin ribozyme, and the U6 spliceosomal RNA. A ribozyme is a 
novel therapeutic approach for disrupting a broad range of life-threatening diseases, 
including many forms of cancer. In contrast to traditional pharmaceutical products, 
ribozymes disrupt genetic information rather than inhibiting protein function. 
Therefore, a fundamental understanding of ribozyme mechanisms is necessary to 
design improved ribozyme derivatives. 
efforts," which 
pe<tlhon4er "has made great progress in leading our ribozyme research 
then described in technical detail. 
Counsel referred to four additional witnesses as "independent evaluators." These four witnesses 
appear not to have worked directly with the petitioner, but three of them have collaborated with 
various witnesses named above. of Northwestern University, 
Evanston, Illinois, collaborated with on a 1992 paper listed on curriculum 
vitae. described the petitioner's Ph.D. research as "an important contribution to the 
ribosome field because she demonstrated for the first time that there are structural differences 
between bacterial and human helix 69, a possible binding site for antibiotics." With respect to the 
petitioner's current work at MSU, stated: ''this new general strategy to study ribose 
conformational effects will be very beneficial for RNA biophysicists and biochemists to acquire a 
deeper understanding of RNA structure and function." 
-Page 6 
manager of advanced development and a principal scientist at 
stated: 
My research collaborator, introduced me to [the petitioner] on a lab 
visit when [the petitioner] was investigating the structural and stability effects of 
pseudouridines on helix 69 located in the catalytic center of ribosomes. This is a 
novel topic of great significance to the development of therapies for many diseases, 
and a research topic that has not been very well-explored in the past. ... I have 
continued to follow [the petitioner's] research .... 
[The petitioner's] RNA structure and dynamics research is contributing to synthesis 
of next-generation biosensors that will be extremely valuable to research and 
development. 
University of Oregon coauthor of several articles on 
curriculum vitae, stated that the petitioner "has made an original contribution to the nationally­
significant field of RNA research by developing a biophysical method to measure metal ion effects 
on RNA-RNA interactions of hairpin ribozymes using circular dichlorism spectroscopy." _ 
••• asserted: "my research group will benefit from the techniques she is outlining in the future." 
The most independent witness of Hunter College of 
the City University of New York. described the petitioner's early research at WSU 
in technical detail and concluded: "[The petitioner's] work is clearly of significant therapeutic value 
in the field and I expect it to be a continuing resource for independent scientists in this field." 
Regarding the petitioner's later work at MSU, stated: 
While it is typical to use biochemical methods to study metal ion effects on RNA 
structure, these methods are not very quantitative. Therefore, [the petitioner] 
innovatively used spectroscopic methods to study these effects. She developed 
quantitative assays to measure metal ion effects by using CD spectroscopy. This 
represents a significant development since these methods are more efficient and 
require less time .... I am looking forward to reading [the petitioner's] research work. 
On October 27, 2010, the director issued a request for evidence. The director acknowledged the 
intrinsic merit and national scope of the petitioner's occupation, but stated that the petitioner had not 
"established that the beneficiary'S work has significantly impacted her filed [sic] of study." In 
response, the petitioner submitted an updated citation list, showing that the total number of 
independent citations of her articles had climbed from 23 to 29. The new figures drew from more 
sources (such as patent applications) than the previous submission. 
The petitioner also submitted letters from, in counsel's words, "four international authorities in the 
petitioner's field, three of whom have cited the petitioner's work in their published articles and one 
of whom serves on the editorial board ofajoumal that has published the petitioner's research." 
Page 7 
of Pennsylvania State University, who serves on the editorial board 
of RNA, stated: 
I have never worked or collaborated with [the petitioner]. I only know of her work 
from her published articles and presentations at international meetings. Since my 
laboratory is studying catalytic RNA, I can attest to her significant contributions to 
RNA structure and functions in her postdoctoral work. ... Her publication and 
presentations show that locked nucleic acids (LNAs) are useful tools to study the 
ribose conformational effect on RNA structure and stability .... Prior to the 
publication of [the petitioner's] 2008 RNA paper, we could not understand the 
relationship between RNA functions and ribose structural dynamics using simple 
methods .... Her presentations and article in RNA expanded the application ofLNAs 
as probes of functional relationships in folded RNA molecules. [The petitioner's] 
significant contribution led to her paper being labeled as a "Must Read" by the widely 
consulted "Faculty of 1000." The Faculty of 1000 identifies and evaluates the most 
important articles in biology and medical research publications. On average, 1500 
new evaluations are published each month and the Faculty of 1000's selections 
correspond to approximately the top 2% of all published articles in the biological and 
medical sciences. 
In my professional opinion, [the petitioner's] contributions to the RNA Biology field 
are of tremendous significance to the development of new RNA therapeutics and 
antibiotics. Her newly-developed RNA structural assay with LNA represents a very 
substantial contribution to the biology and medical research fields and an exceptional 
fmding that will significantly benefit the work of independent scientists such as 
myself. 
assistant professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, stated: 
Through my research, I have become independently familiar with [the petitioner's] 
scientific contributions. I examined one of her published articles in the prestigious 
RNA journal in 2008, and cited her study in my own research article .... 
The most significant and outstanding element of her 2008 RNA paper is her 
development of a simple method to study RNA structural dynamics and the functional 
effects of ribose conformation. This is extremely valuable because conformational 
changes in RNA are important to functions such as RNA catalysis and protein-RNA 
recognition .... [The petitioner's] 2008 RNA article substantially lowered the barriers 
to the study of RNA structural dynamics .... Her research has significantly impacted 
my independent studies based on the RNA molecule and advanced my efforts to 
develop new therapies and new knowledge based upon the functions of these 
molecules. 
of Johannes Gutenburg University, Mainz, Germany, stated: 
Page 8 
I have never worked or collaborated with [the petitioner], and know her only through 
her first authored published work ... , which I cited in two review articles .... 
[The petitioner's] work stands out in particular for its prominence and originality. I 
cited [the petitioner's] article for her detailed and outstanding coverage of the 
structural and stability effects of pseudo uri dine in the rRNA region, helix 69 .... [The 
petitioner's] paper is an outstanding research study focusing on the eukaryotic 
ribosome and the first paper to discuss the structural and stability effects of 
pseudouridines in the human helix 69 sequence. This has made her article a novel 
contribution to molecular biology in many ways . 
. . . Recently, at the State of University of New York at Albany 
discussed the different binding affmities of currently available antibiotics to bacterial 
and human helix 69 based on [the petitioner's] structural work. ... Her findings on 
the RNA structure topic have generated a significant amount of independent research, 
such as _study, and it is my professional assessment that [the petitioner's] 
work occupies a central role in the field of RNA research, especially as it relates to 
the development of new therapies and antibiotics for many diseases. 
_offered his own letter in support ofthe petition, stating: 
One of the key citations in my most recently published paper ... is her 2005 RNA 
paper .... I cited her research to show that helix 69 sequences in humans bind 
considerably fewer antibiotics compared to E. coli sequences. This means that these 
antibiotics are less toxic to human beings . 
. . . [The petitioner] used various complex biophysical techniques to show that helix 
69 is a new ideal drug-target site for antibiotics by comparing bacterial and human 
sequences of the helix 69 hairpin. Since drug resistance is a serious problem, it is 
necessary to identify new antibiotic targets. Moreover, antibiotic design requires an 
intricate understanding of the structure and function ofbio-molecules. However, the 
eukaryotic ribosome structure is still unresolved. 
[The petitioner's] 2005 publication is so essential because this is one of the most 
important research articles ever produced about the human ribosome structure and 
contains an outstanding comparison study between bacteria and humans that pre­
dated my 2010 Nucleic Acids Research paper. Helix 69 research is [of] great medical 
significance to antibiotic drug design and it is for these reasons that I cited [the 
petitioner's] research in my publication. Her work significantly benefited my 
fmdings, and I consider her fmdings outstanding and of great significance to our 
efforts to develop new antibiotics. 
Page 9 
(Emphasis in original.) The director denied the petition on December 28, 2010, stating that the 
"letters are general in nature, and do not establish the petitioner's abilities are greater than ... [those 
of her] peers. In addition these letters have not established the petitioner will impact the field of 
biochemistry as a whole to [a] substantially greater degree than U.S. Citizens counterparts [sic]." 
The director found that "many of these letters" were from colleagues rather than independent 
witnesses. The director also asserted that the petitioner's publicatio·n and citation record "are not 
unusual or different from other researchers or professors who have had their worked [sic] published, 
or presented their findings." 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director ''undercounted citation numbers and entirely omitted to 
consider additional evidence of Appellant's impact on her field, including but not limited to the 
statements of credible independent references and the recommendation of her research by elite 
review sources." 
With respect to the claimed undercounting of citation numbers, counsel states that the petitioner 
originally documented 27 citations, increased to 30 after the request for evidence. The petitioner's 
initial submission included a citation database printout showing four citations of one article, six of a 
second, and 14 of a third, for a total of24 citations (including a self-citation). Counsel, on page 2 of 
the introductory letter, originally stated that the petitioner's "published work has been 
independently cited twenty-three (23) times" (emphasis in original). Now, on appeal, counsel 
states that the director erred by not counting 27 citations in the initial submission. Counsel does not 
account for the extra four citations or explain how counsel, too, did not count them at first. 
Counsel states: 
[The petitioner's] publication on "Conformationally-restricted Nucleotides" in the 
RNA journal was rated as a "Must Reaff' article by the Faculty of 1000, an elite 
scientific review service provided by the leading minds in the field. Only the top 2% 
of papers in the field from among thousands that are reviewed annually receive such 
"Must Read" designation. [App. Exh. 3] 
(Counsel's emphasis; footnote omitted.) Exhibit 3, a printout from http://flOOO.comlaboutiwhatis, 
does not say what counsel claims it says. The relevant part of that printout reads: "On average, 1500 
new evaluations are published each month; this corresponds to approximately the top 2% of all 
published articles in the biological and medical sciences." The printout does not say that only 2% of 
reviewed articles receive the "Must Read" designation, or that "Must Read" is the top designation 
that an article can receive. The record does not indicate the extent to which the field as a whole 
relies on Faculty of 1 000 evaluations. 
It is true that the Faculty of 1000 evaluates "approximately the top 2% of all published articles in the 
biological and medical sciences." That small percentage, however, encompasses "1500 new 
evaluations each month," or 18,000 articles per year. So high a number does not realistically imply 
that every author of every evaluated article presumptively qualifies for the national interest waiver. 
Conservatively estimating two authors per article, the aggregate number of authors would approach 
Page 10 
the total allocation of employment-based immigrant visas under sections 201 (d)(l)(A) and 203(b)(2) 
ofthe Act. 
Because the mere act of selection by the Faculty of 1000 does not show eligibility for the waiver, it 
is relevant to consider how the Faculty of 1000 rates a given article. The evidence submitted does 
not reveal the full range ofrankings; it shows only that there are at least two, "Recommended" and 
"Must Read." As noted previously, the petitioner's prior submission showed ten listings from the 
Faculty of 1000. Three of those ten had "Must Read" rankings, with the remainder ranked 
"Recommended." All seven "Recommended" articles had FlOOO factors of 3.0, each selected by 
one reVIewer. 
The listings for the three "Must Read" articles included the following information: 
"A fluorophore ligase for site-specific protein labeling inside living cells." • 
FIOOO Factor: 6.7 
Selected by: 
_and 
___ 1-1_-
''The Kinesin-l tail conformationally restricts the nucleotide pocked." 
restricted nucleotides as a probe of structure-function relationships 
(The petitioner is second author.) 
The article by received a higher Fl 000 factor than the petitioner's article. While 
only one reviewer selected the petitioner's article, the article caught the attention of 
eight reviewers in five research groups, who ranked the article with a higher F1000 factor than the 
petitioner's paper. 
The sparse documentation in the record indicates that selection by the Faculty of 1000 is a 
distinction of some merit, but it does not support counsel's claim that the petitioner's article occupies 
a place of honor in relation to the thousands of other selected articles. It shows, rather, that the 
petitioner's article made a favorable impression on one member ofthe Faculty of 1000. 
Counsel states: 
Writing in the a leading 
global biosensor expert, rated_ publication exceedingly favorably and gave 
Page 11 
her data an "A" grade. [App. Exh. 5] compared 1413 articles 
published in 2008 describing biosensor-based experiments, and gave only 22 of these 
articles containing the most valuable experiments and results (1.55% of published 
articles) "A" grades. The figures in _ 2008 RNA publication were 
specifically cited as an excellent example of strong data and analysis and it is 
apparent that evaluated her research as the best in the field. 
In a new letter, refers to the same article, stating: ''the OU''''UUUllJLE, 
data published in a study in the _ in 2008 was commented on by 
_ one of the leading global scientists focusing on biosensors, in an article in the_ 
The ioner submits a copy of the above-mentioned article by (not _) 
and "Grading the commercial optical biosensor literature - Class of 2008: 'The 
Mighty Binders. '" The petitioner had previously submitted another copy of this article among the 
examples of articles that cited the petitioner's work. The article is not about the petitioner's field 0 f 
research. Rather, the introduction to the article reads: 
Optical biosensor technology continues to be the method of choice for label-free, 
real-time interaction analysis. But when it comes to improving the quality of the 
biosensor literature, education should be fundamental. Of the 1413 articles published 
in 2008, less than 30% would pass the requirements for high-school chemistry. To 
teach by example, we spotlight 10 papers that illustrate how to implement the 
technology properly. Then we grade every paper published in 2008 on a scale from A 
to F and outline what features make a biosensor article fabulous, middling or 
abysmal. To help improve the quality of published data, we focus on a few 
experimental, analysis and presentation mistakes that are alarmingly common. With 
the literature as a guide, we want to ensure that no user is left behind. 
The authors gave the petitioner's article a grade of "A," but this is a comment on how well the 
petitioner's research team used biosensor technology, not the petitioner's impact on her own field. 
The petitioner's paper is not among the ten articles in the "Honor Roll" that begins on page 2 of the 
article. The article's 1,413-entry bibliography, which takes up 38 of its 64 pages, lists the 
petitioner's article at number 846. Only one citation refers specifically to number 846 (in the 
caption of a figure on page 16, showing properly-prepared kinetic analyses). The remaining 
citations encompassing the petitioner's work refer collectively to large numbers of articles. One 
such citation, on page 2, reads "43-1338," indicating that the citation refers simultaneously to 1,296 
different sources. Another citation on page 3 refers to every article (of which there are more than a 
thousand) in which the researchers used instruments manufactured by GE Healthcare/Biacore. 
The article does not support counsel's claim that _and _considered the petitioner's work 
to be among ''the most valuable experiments and results," or her "research as the best in the field." 
Rather, _and_concluded that the petitioner's article was among a handful that showed 
optimal data collection through the proper use of optical biosensors. This is a much narrower 
Page 12 
conclusion that the one claimed by counsel and 
what role the petitioner, out of five coauthors, 
interpreting the collected data. 
The record does not even show 
played m using the optical biosensors and/or 
Counsel's appellate brief alleges a pattern of factual errors by the director, but that brief, itself, 
contains numerous distortions and exaggerations as described above. 
The AAO acknowledges the petitioner's submission ofletters from credible witnesses. The Board 
ofImmigration 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." Id. 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 the AAO has considered them above. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter o.f Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the [mal determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission ofletters 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. 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 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 petitioner has submitted letters from independent witnesses who assert that the petitioner's work 
has influenced their own subsequent research. The witnesses did not, however, identify specific 
advances in the field that have demonstrably arisen from the petitioner's published or presented 
work. Coupled with a citation rate that appears to be moderate at best, the letters are anecdotal 
rather than authoritative and lack persuasive documentary support. 
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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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.