dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Biomedical Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBT ,lC COPY 
1I.S. Department of Homeland Security 
US. Citizenship and Immigration Serbices 
Administrative Apprals Ollice (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW.. MS 2090 
Washington. l>C 2052')-2040 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 0 I 2011 
IN RE: 
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. 3 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. 5 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-2908. Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that ally motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
'l'hank you, 
V 
krry Rhew 
chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
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 [J.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. While the petitioner did not provide the proposed employment on the 
Form 1-140 on Part 6 where requested, the record reveals that the petitioner seeks employ~nent as a 
biomedical engineer. The petitioner asserts that an exemption liom the requirement of a job offcr. 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 cxcmption from thc rcquire~ilent of a job offer 
would be in the national interest ofthe United States. 
On appeal, counsel requests that the AAO "re-review" the same evidence the director considered and 
submits the petitioner's self-serving 48-page essay-style curriculum vitae. This appellate submission 
mostly reiterates points the director already considered and fails to expressly addrcss the director's 
concerns. Nevertheless, the submission appears to niini~ndlly allege errors in the director's decision 
such that we will not summarily dismiss the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v). For the 
reasons discusscd below. we find that the record contains voluminous documentation that is mostly 
frivolous and fidils to support the hyperbolic statements by counsel, the petitioner and the petitioner's 
references. Ultimately, while the petitioner was qualified to work on a nationally significant project as 
of the date of filing, on that date he had yet to publish a single article and the record contains no 
evidence that his presentations, most of which were poster prcscntations, had garnered any attention in 
the field. 
At the outset. we note a disturbing filing histo~ on behall'of the petitioner. On the saliie date as the 
current petition, the petitioner also filed a second Fom~ 1-140 petition, SRC-08-260-51398. seeking 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. I hc 
director also denied that petition. Counsel represented the petitioncr for this petition. 
The record also contains three new Form 1-140s in behalf of the petitioner in this matter. Counsel 
represented the petitioner in all of these petitions. On March 16. 201 0, the pctitioner's employer filed a 
Form 1-140 petition seeking to classi& the self-petitioner in this matter as an outstanding researcher 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act, LIN-10-112-51082. The petition. signed by counsel in this 
matter, erroneously claims that no petitions had previously been filed in behalf of the current self- 
petitioner. The director denied that petition. On March 4, 2010, the petitioner filed additional Fonil I- 
140 petitions seeking classification as an alien of extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203)(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act; SRC-10-104-51609 and the same classification and benefit as the one sought in this matter 
pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B) of the Act; SRC-10-104-51615. The petitioner misrepresented on 
both of his 2010 self-petitioned petitions that he had never filed a petition seeking an immigration 
benefit previously. Current counsel also signed those subsequent petitions despite being aware of the 
Page 3 
petition before us as well as a second petition filed on the same date, seeking classification pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The TSC director, adjudicating petitions that failed to reveal the 
previously denied petitions, approved SRC-10-104-51609 and SRC-10-104-5 161 5. Whilc those 
petitions are not before us and could conceivably contain evidence of accomplishments after the date ot 
tiling in the matter before us, if those subsequent petitions are primarily based on the same evidence 
submitted in this matter, those approvals were in gross crror. 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of subsequent approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Muller 
of L'hurch Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593. 597 (Comm'r. 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. S~~.s.sex Engg. 
LI~ v. Montgomery. 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). cert. denied, 485 IJ.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore. the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved immigrant petitions 
on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictoty decision of a 
service center. Loui.~iunu Philhurmonic Orche.sfru 11. IiliS. 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.). r~ff'd. 248 F.3d 
1139 (5th Cir. 2001): cert, denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
While there is no prohibition regarding the number of extraordinary ability and national interest waivcr 
petitions an alien may choose to file, neither the alien nor his attorney of record is peniiitted to 
deliberately conceal the existence of prior filings in response to the specific questions at Part 4 of an 
1-140 petition, or to decline to provide U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) with 
specific requested information regarding all prior filings. The Form 1-140 petition "shall be executed 
and filed in accordance with the instructions on the form." 8 C.F.R. S, 103.2(a)(l). As counsel has 
represented the petitioner in all of his Form 1-140 filings, it is unclear why counsel signed the 2010 
petitions to indicate that the information on the form was "based on all information of which I have 
knowledge." The existence of prior petitions and the information contained within those petitions may 
bc material to a new adjudication. Set., e.g, 8 C.F.R. 6 103.2(h)(15) (withdrawal or denial of a petition 
due to abandonment shall not itself affect a new proceeding: however, the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the prior petition shall otherwise be material to the new petition). We further note. as will 
be discussed below. that counsel initially asserted that the petitioner "has been published in prestigious 
.journals" when, in fact, he had not published a single article in any journal as of that datc. The AAO 
notes that willfully misleading. misinforming or deceiving any person concerning any material and 
relevant matter relating to a case may be a basis for disciplinary sanctions under 8 C.F.R. 
1003.102(c). In addition, such actions may constitute frivolous behavior. See 8 C:.F.K. 
6 1003.102(j). 
With respect to the petitioner's failure to respond truthfully to thc questions at Part 4 of thc Form 
1-140, we note that the petitioner is currently in the Unitcd States as an 11-IU nonimmigrant A 
nonimmigrant's admission and continued stay in the United States is conditioned on the full and 
truthful disclosure of all information requested by the Service. Willful failure by a nonim~nigrant to 
Page 4 
provide full and truthful information requested by USCIS (regardless of whether or not the 
information requested was material) constitutes a failure to maintain nonimmigrant status under 
section 237(a)(I)(C)(i) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. $214.l(f). The AAO must express its deep concern and 
strongly discourage this behavior even though it occurred in petitions filed aftcr the one before us. 
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 well'are 
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 ofjob offer 
(i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to 
bc in the national interest, waive the requircments of subparagraph (A) 
that an alien's services in the sciences. arts. professions. or business be 
sought by an employer in the United States. 
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 employ~iient 
certification. is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally. Congress 
did not provide a specific delinition 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, l0lst Cong., 1st Sess., I1 (1989). 
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 llexible as 
possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard liiust 
make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove thc "prospective national 
Page 5 
benefit" [required of aliens seeking to qualifL as "cxceptional."] 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. 
Mutter of New York Slule Dep '1. ufli.un.sp., 22 I&N Dee. 2 15. 2 17- 18 (Cnmm'r. 1998) (hereinafter 
"NYSDOT"), has set forth several factors that 1J.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
must consider when evaluating a request for a national intcrcst waiver. First, the petitioner must show 
that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Id at 217. Next, the petitioner 
must show 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 217.1 8. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, thc 
petitioner must establish 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. We include the term 
"prospective" 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 
At the time of filing, the petitioner worked at the - under the direction of- 
on projects that the was funding. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit. biomedical 
engineering, and that the proposed benetits of his work, improved understanding of the medical 
co~nplications involved in weightlessness, 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 IJ.S. 
worker with the same minimum qualifications. 
Counsel initially asserted that "there is currently a shortagc [of] 
the IJnited States" and that the United States "is in dire need o 
nd complex research scientist." Subsequently, however, counsel asserts in the same 
initial cover letter that the petitioner was selected for his positions .'after nationwide searches in 
competition with extremely highly qualified peers because he is regarded as a superior - 
These assertions appear to contradict each other. Regardless, the issue of whether 
similarly-trained workers are available in the United States is an issue under the jurisdiction of the 
- Id at 221. Thus, we make no finding as to whether a shortage exists. 
The record contains voluminous evidence regarding the significance of the project on which the 
petitioner is working. Some of this evidence predates the petitioner's involvement with that project. 
Eligibility for the waiver must rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with thc position 
sought. In other words, we generally do not accept the argumcnt that a givcn project is so important 
Page 6 
that any alien qualified to work on this project must also qualifi for a national interest waiver. Id, at 
218. 
proposition that an employer cannot list ability or knowledge requirements on an application for 
alien employment certification. Thus, counsel concludes, the petitioner's "extraordinary skills" and 
"specialized knowledge in - justify a waiver of the alien employment 
cases counsel cites are not pcrsuasive. - 
found that the employer had required "artistic ability" without quantifying 
how that ability would qualify someone for the position. Nothing in that decision su ests that an 
employer cannot require quantifiable experience with specific technologies. In Yl 
upheld a denial of an alien enlployment certification where 
the employer had not quantilied in months or years the special requirements that an applicant must: 
"Demonstrate ability to use 
software programs." Again, 
experience. Finally. the holding in - 
is limitcd to very specific facts where the alien gained 
all of his experience with the employer, the job appeared tailored to the exact qualifications of thc 
alien and 71 individuals applied for the position. The holding that, in those particular circurnstanccs. 
there was no bona-fide job offer open to U.S. workers, does not result in a finding that a waiver of 
the alien employment certification is warranted for every with the necessary skills to work 
on a U.S. government funded project. Ultirnatcly, it cannot suffice to state that the alicn possesses 
useful skills, or a "unique background." Id at 221. Special or unusual knowledge or training does 
not inherently meet the national interest threshold. Id 
At issue is whether this petitioner's contributions in the lield 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 prool: 
A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of intluence 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. Whethcr the specific 
ilu~ovation serves the national interest must be decidcd on a case-by-case basis. Id at 221. n. 7. 
We note that the record contains voluminous evidence, often submitted in duplicate or triplicate. that is 
only minimally relevant to the issue of the petitioner's influence in the field. For example. the 
petitioner submitted his job evaluation and considerable email traffic. The pctitioner's job evaluation 
demonstrates that he is competent but cannot establish his influence in the field. 'lhe fact that the 
petitioner is qualilied and competent cannot scrve as a basis for a waiver of the alien cniploynient 
certification process. One email advises that the petitioner is not eligible for a job because he lacks 
lawful permanent resident status. The email does not suggest that the employer would otherwise have 
offered the petitioner a position; rather, it advises that the employcr cannot consider the pctitioner for 
the position. A significant number of emails are between the petitioner and his employer. funding 
Page 7 
agency and former academic institution that are commensurate with noniial chatter in the course of 
business and academia. While the evidence may be voluminous. USCIS dctcrmlncs the truth not by 
the quantity of evidence alone but by its qualily. Muiter of C'hn~wrhe, 25 I&N Dec. 369. 376 (AAO 
2010) citing Matter of E-M- 20 l&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r. 1989). These emails do not establish the 
petitioner's influence beyond his employer and former university. 
Initially, counsel asserted: 
As a result of his outstanding achievements in the field of research engineering, [the 
petitioner] was awarded full membership of [sic] - 
Notably, membership is conferred only upon those who have demonstrated 
noteworthv achievements as an original investigator in a field of science. . .. Eauallv 
i a professional international society 
ttists aimed at developing new ways to serve the 
professional community. 
'She unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Muller 0f0huighentr. 19 l&N 
Dec. 533. 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Luureuno. 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983): .I.kr//rr of' 
Rumirez-Sunchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503. 506 (BIA 1080). The pctitioner submitted exhibits that 
uuruortedly document not only his membership but also the mernbershiu reauirements ibr thc 
. . 
associations. In fact, the exhibits only contain evidence of the petitioner's membership in 
as an "Early Career Member." A separate exhibit contains some 
characterized as "the world's largest international society of 
claimed by counsel. 
Nothing in the materials suggest that membership is -'conferred only upon those who 
have demonstrated noteworthy achievements as an original investigator in a field of science" as 
Professional memberships are one type of evidence that can be submitted to establish exceptional 
ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(k)(3)(ii)(E). Because exceptional ability, by itself, does not justify a waiver 
of the job offerllabor certification requirement. arguments hinging on association memberships within a 
profession. while relevant, are not dispositive to the matter at hand. See NYSL)OI: 22 I&N Dec. at 222. 
The rccord contains no evidence that "Early Career Member" status in BMES and menibership in- 
is indicative of or consistent with an influence in the field rathcr than commensurate with employment 
in the field. 
copy of the book '-at a special pre-publication savings." 
 The petitioner also submitted 111s onc- 
paragraph biography as it appears in the publisher's database. The rccord does not establish how man 
of'thew brief biographies are included in the book Thc petitioner has not established that 
Page 8 
is significantly more notable than a vanity press that publishes hundreds or even thousands 
of brief biographies in the hope of selling copies of the edition to those included in the book. 
Counsel has asserted that the oetitioner has iudned the work of others. including the work of more < - 
senior members of the field. ' The record contains evidence that th; asked the 
petitioner to participate in evaluations of students at the clinic. In addition, the 
petitioner's former advisor at the requested that the petitioner provide comments 
on a manuscript for did not ask that the petitioner actually complete the review 
for the journal. Rather. that the journal had specifically askcd hi111 to complete the 
review and he was merely seeking the petitioner's input for a review that  would suhmit to 
the journal. Counsel has not explained how these entirely internal requests emonstrate the petitioncr's 
influence in the field beyond the - 
The petitioner indicated on his self-serving curricul~~m vitae that in 2007 the 
promoted him from an 
asserts that the petitioner was working at the 
dated May 29, 2008. 
makes the same assertion. The record also contains an Anril 5. 2007 email from a Human Rrm~~rrrq 
Nevertheless, in this matter the record is inconsistent. In a March 6, 2007 email in the record.- 
asserts that he would begin processing a promotion but it was "likely that we will have to 
post a new job and you will have to apply for it through human resources." More significantly: the 
petitioner submitted webpage on the website. The webpagc, printed 
on .luly 24, 2008 (which postdates the other evidence). lists the petitioner as one of three - 
and separately lists two employees who are not the petitioner as - 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Multer of Ho. 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless thc petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Id The record does not contain comuetent obiectibe 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa 
petition. Id. at 591. 
Regardless, we are not ersuaded that the mere employn~ent of the petitioner as a - 
for the is sufficient evidence to warant a waiver of the alien employment 
certification process, a process that presupposes an employer and job offer. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner "has published in prestigious journals." As stated above, 
the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Mutter of Ohaixhencr. 19 I&N Dec. at 
534 n.2; Mutter c~f'Luureuno. 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2: Murrer of'Ramirez-,~chez 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
The record contains no evidence that, as of the date of liling, the petitioner had published a single 
article in any journal. Rather, he submitted his unpublished Master's thesis and listed several 
"submitted" or "to be submitted" publications on his curriculun~ vitae. The petitioner included an 
exhibit entitled: The exhibit contains evidence of the 
status of two manuscripts. The first manuscript is listed as "under review" with - ?he second manuscript is listed as "Revise-Major" with the same journal. 
The record contains no evidence that any journal had even accepted a manuscript by the petitioner for 
publication. Counsel's misrepresentation of a fact that is obvious from even a cursory review of the 
record seriously reduces counsel's credibility. 
various conferences documentin J six oster presentations. Co~~nsel asserts that the petitioner received 
a travel grant and a ~awrd. I'he record reveals that tlic petitioner was one of40 
students to receive a "registration grant'' providing financial support Lo attend a conference. The second 
place 
' 
award was also limited to graduate students. Recognition for achievements and 
significant contributions from professional organizations is one type of evidence that may be submitted 
to establish exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(k)(3)(ii)(F). Because exceptional ability, by itself. 
does not justifji a waiver of the job offerllabor certification requirement, arguments hinging on 
recognition for achievements and significant contributions. while relevant, are not dispositive to the 
matter at hand. See NYSDOT 22 I&N Dec. at 222. At issue is the nature of any influence of these 
presentations once disseminated in the field. A registration award financing attendance at a conference 
and recognition limited to students presenting their work do not demonstrate the ultimate of the 
petitioner's work once presented. 
, . 
the petitioner's work on funded projects. Thus, this testimony could not have '.cited" the 
asserts that previous portions of the study have provided a better understanding of. the bone 
and muscle loss in the lower extremities during prolon ed weightlessness and that the planned 
experiment will help in future space flights. 4 does not single out the - 
name the pctitioncr. The petitioner also submitted a similar statcnie~lt 
from before the same subcommittee on July 24. 2007. 
Page I0 
The petitioner submitted a single citation of his work on - presented at a 
conference in 2004. In this citing article, the authors cite the pctitioner's presentation as one of several 
cxamples of "features [that] have been proposed for beat recognition.'' The petitioner also 
submitted a self-citation by These two citations, only one of which is from an 
independent researcher, cannot demonstrate the petitioner's influence in the field as a whole. 
The petitioner also submitted an undated book t 
The book includes a few paragraphs dedicated to As the publication date of this book is not in 
the record, we cannot determine whether this book predates the petitioner's involvement with = 
Regardless, the book does not single out the bioengineering significance of the work or name the 
petitioner by name. 
Counsel has asserted that the petitioner's "work has been cited in While this 
article discusses the mproject at length, it cites a 2004 
citation of the petitioner's work. 
include the petitioner as a coauthor. Thus, we cannot consider the - article as a 
The petitioner submitted various emails purporting to document his role on various projects. .I'hese 
ernails, out of context, cany less wei ht than s ecific job titles and credit on grant applications and 
project reports. The emails indicate asked the petitioner to .'take leadership.. of an 
e as "data manager for the bcdrest 
of the bedrest project, asked the 
data.'' These emails appear more 
akin to delineating the petitioner's day to day job responsibilities for thethan setting 
forth the actual nature of the petitioner's role for the project as a whole. These internal ernails certainly 
do not demonstrate the petitioner's influence beyond the- 
As evidence of the petitioner's '.leading role" on theproject, the petitioner also submitted a Fact 
Sheet for the project onwebsite. The fact sheet lists - and four individuals as co-investigatorslcollaborators. The petitloner's name does not 
appear on the fact sheet. Handwritten on the document is the petitioner's name and "added later." I'he 
record does not contain an updated version with the petitioner's name.' That said, we acknowledge the 
subnlission of a for 
and the petitioner as one of four co-investigators. 
lists the petitioner as one of two study coordinators. The 
A personnel list for a bedrest protocol lists 
as one of nine co-investigators. While this evidence conlirrns that the 
petitioner worked on these projects, his qualifications to work on projects of national signiticance are 
I 
We reviewed the same webpage on March 24, 201 I, now incorporated into the record of pl-oceedings. The 
webpage, updated in February 201 1. still does not include the petitioner's name. 
Page I I 
not contested. Rather, such qualifications are insufficient by themselves to warrant a waiver of the 
alien employment certification process. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he is featured (along with other members of - 
team) in hoto ra hs on the - websitc and that the magazine 
discussed project This internal material does not establish the petitioner's individual 
influence in the field beyond the I'hc petitioner also submitted evidence that 
website mentions the petitioner's studies but does not name the petitioner. 'The petitioner 
submitted an article that mentions a project on which the petitioner is working in a newsletter. 
The newsletter: however, is dated January 2004, before the petitioner began working on funded 
projects. Thus, this newsletter cannot establish the petitioner's contribution to this project or his 
ultimate influence in the field. Similarly, materials dated in 2003 relating to the in general and a 
funded project on which the petitioner eventually worked have no relevance to the petitioner's 
work on funded projects after graduating in August 2004. A 2005 article in - 
mentions that participated in a study on which the petitioner 
worked. This article does not mention the significance of the petitioner's project or 
name the petitioner individually. 
While the petitioner did submit a July 2006 article about a bedrest study on which the petitioner was 
working at the time, the materials focus on the volunteers who spent 12 weeks in bed rather than the 
aspects of the study. The materials do not mention the petitioner by name. Other 
published materials about the study quote extensively but make no mention of the 
petitioner. As discussed above, we do not question the importance of the projects on which thc 
petitioner has worked. We reiterate that a waiver of the alien employment certification process is not 
warranted for any alien qualified to work on an important project. Id. at 218. At issue is the 
petitioner's influence in the field. 
no evidence that the whose name appears on the report, disseminated the report 
widely. Moreover. the petltloner ta~led to submit evidence demonstrating the influence of this report. 
Ultimately, this report demonstrates the pctitioner's completion of a work assignment without 
demonstrating the assignment's influence in the field. 
The remaining evidence consists of four letters. whose education is in medicine rathcr 
than engineering, discusses the petitioner's work on funded projects. As stated above. 
which is contradicted 
petitioner's work in 2007. As stated above, the article's discussion of the mproject cites a 2004 
article by hat does not list the petitioner as a coauthor. Thus, it is disineetluous to assert - 
that the 2007 article citcs the petitioner's work. USCIS may give less weight to an opinion that is not 
Page 12 
corroborated. in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Mu~rer c~f C'trron 
/n/evnutionul, 19 l&N Dec. 791. 795 (Comm'r. 1988). Given qucstionablc 
assertions, his credibility is somewhat reduced. 
asserts that the petitioner "parrticipated in protocol definition, communicating thc 
protocols to to facilitate data collection, conception of methodology to perform analysis. 
implementation of methodology by creating algorithms, testing and debugging the codes. 
interpretation of results and formulation of clinical solutions." With respect 
to explains that the petitioner's "objectives" were: 
1. Resolve the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data to quantifj muscle atroph) 
in - 
2. the calibration issues relating to foot force data collected fro-and 
3. signal processing challenges involved with the kinematic data. 
then explains how the experiments were conducted and asserts: 
rl'he petitioner's work] provides further insight into the role of skeletal unloading in 
bone loss during long-term space flight, and knowledge gained from this raearch will 
also contribute to a better understanding of the importance of exercise for the 
development and maintenance of muscle and bone strcngth on Earth. including many 
aspects of osteoporosis in the aging population. 
project or explain how the petitioner has influenced the field of bioengineering 
vumorts to discuss "several honors" the oetitioner has received. These "honors." however. 
and his professional memberships. As stated above. the record is inconsistent regarding the mature of 
the petitioner's position at the- 
Regardless, the above credentials are not "honors." The petitioner seeks classification as a rncmber of 
the professions holding an advanced degree. Thc petitioner also seeks a waiver of the alien 
employment certification process, a process normally required for that classification. As the 
classification itself requires an advanced degree. admission to an undergraduate school is not an 
"honor" that suggests the alien ernploy~~lent certiticntion process should be waivcd in the national 
interest. Further, academic performance, measured by such criteria as grade point averagc. cannot 
alone satisfy the national interest threshold or assure substantial prospective national benefit. In all 
Page 13 
cases the petitioner must demonstrate specific prior achievements that establish the alien's ability to 
benefit the national interest. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n.6. Thus, the petitioner's academic 
rank does not warrant a waiver of the alien employment certification process. 
confirms that the petitioner worked as a teaching assistant and participated in research. - 
further confirms that the petitioner received a "letter of commendation from the President of the 
in 2004." The petitioner did not submit the actual letter of comniendation. Thus. 
11s nature is unknown. Employment as a research or teaching assistant is not a "leading" rolc for a 
university as a whole. Regardless, such intcrnal cxpcricncc cannot establish the pctitioner's nider 
inlluence in the field beyond the Finally, the record does not establish that tlie 
petitioner's professional memberships are significant and we will not infer the petitioner's inlluence in 
tlie field from the prestige of his employer. 
Finally. discusses the petitioner's expertise with various computer languages and softuare 
programs. Simple exposure to advanced technology constitutes, essentially. occupational training 
which can be articulated on an application for an alien employment certification. Special or unusual 
knowledge or training, while perhaps attractive to the prospective U.S. employer, docs not inherently 
meet the national interest threshold. Id. at 221. 
It should be noted that [the petitioner's] expertise has been relied upon on several 
occasions to solve highly com~lcx ~rohlems that other exvert scientists and engineers -. .. 
could not resolve, including analyzing Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MIZI) data and 
resolving issues related to validating for the 
As a critical member of the research engineering team, [the petitioner] has responsibility 
for the successful execution of data and analysis. interpretation and publications. 
developn~ent/fonnulation of algorithms for applicat~ons in analy~ing/calibrating/ 
processing data, software development ibr Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI) analysis, 
development of non-uniform rational B-spline models and n~usculoskeletal models for 
3D motion analysis. [The petitioner] also examined changes in strength, bone mineral 
density, and muscle volume as a corn 
current exercise countermeasures on the 
In addition, he is the interfacing contact to improvise 
and Facilitate analysis, support and trace experiments, representing thc group in 
conferences, multimedia & manuscript support. 
Page 14 
does not explain how the petitioner's ability provide the project with the necessarj 
tcchnical support necessary to obtain valid results has influenced the field of - 
also discusses the petitioner's role for theroject. While she asserts that the 
petitioner has held a "leadership" role for the project and has "significantly contributed" to it. she fails 
to identitL specific contributions or explain how they have influenced the field. 
the petitioner's .'credentials and research accomplishments." does not suggest she had ever 
heard of the petitioner or his work prior to being contacted for a reference letter. asserts that 
petitioner is a ' which would only hire the "top 
biomedical researchers in the country." First, as stated above. the record is inconsistent regarding the 
petitioner's position at the Regardless. we will not infer the petitioner's influence in 
the field from the institution where he works. disc~isses the broad implications of the studies 
on which the petitioner has worked but does not suggest that his accomplishmcnts have 
influenced her own work. 
has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, eg., Mulier ofS-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). also held, however: "We not only encourage. but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence. where available." I If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility. there is a greater need for the petitioner lo submit 
corroborative evidcncc. Marrer ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1 136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field arc not without weight and have been considered above. USClS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Murier 
c?/(Juron Iniernuiionul. 19 I&N Dec. at 795. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for nlaking 
the linal detem~ination 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: lJSCIS may. as 
we have done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's 
eligibility. See id at 795; see ul.so Mutler uflV-K-. 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that 
expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USClS may even give less 
weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with othcr information or is in any way 
questionable. Id at 795; see ulso Mutter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158. 165 (Comm'r. 1098) (citing 
Mutter ($TI-eusure Crufi !fiof(,'alifirniu, 14 I&N Dec. 100 (Kcg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of expertise without specifically 
identifying bioengineering innovations and providing specific cxamples of how those innovat~ons 
have influenced the field of- Merely repeating the legal standards does not satisfy the 
Page 15 
petitioner's burden of proof.2 The petitioner submitted only a single independent letter and this lettcr 
does not suggest thc author has applied the beneficiary's uork or even that she had e\er heard of the 
petitioner or his work prior to being contacted for a reference letter. While the petitioner submitted 
voluminous documentation, much of that documentation has little relevance to the issue of the 
petitioner's influence in the field. The petitioner failed to submit corrohoraring evidence in 
existence prior to the preparation of the petition. which could have bolstered the weight of the 
reference letters. 
The record shows that the petitioner is respected by his colleagues and has made useful contributions 
to specific projects. It can be argued, however, that most research, in order to receivc funding. must 
present some benefit to the general pool of scientific knowledge. It does not follow that every 
researcher working with a government grant inherently serves the national interest to an extent that 
justifies a waiver of the job offer requirement. The petitioner, while working on a nationally 
significant project, was not the principal investigator for that project and was himself unpublished as 
of the date of filing. While the petitioner had presented his work, his presentations had garnered 
little attention in the field. Ultimately, the evidence shows that the petitioner's employer appreciates 
his work but demonstrates no influence or even familiarity in the field beyond that employer. 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that evely person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from thc rcquircment 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. 5 1361. The pctitioner 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. 
Feclin Bros. Co., Lld v. Suvu, 724 F. Supp. 1103; 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), qff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Alyr A.s.sociates. Inc. v. Mei.~.sner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarlv. LJSClS need not accent 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, lnc. 1,. The Altor~rc,~, Generlrl ofrhe Liri~erlS~tr~e.~. 745 F. Supp. 9. IS 
(D.C. Dist. 1990).