dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Biomedical Research

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
gauccort
U.S.Department of HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
Officeof AdministrativeAppealsMS2090
Washington,DC20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE: Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER Date: @T 1 4 20$
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasaMemberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
Degreeor anAlien of ExceptionalAbility Pursuantto Section203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2)
ON BEHALF OFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the documents
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe law was inappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
information that you wish to haveconsidered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopen. The
specific requirementsfor filing such a requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be
submittedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing aFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion.
Thefeefor a FormI-290B is currently$585,but will increaseto $630onNovember23,2010. Any appealor
motionfiled on or afterNovember23, 2010mustbe filed with the $630fee. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbefiled within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto
reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
rry Rhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: TheDirector,TexasServiceCenter,deniedtheemployment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition.Thematteris nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.TheAAO will
dismisstheappeal.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationpursuantto section203(b)(2)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct
(theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2),asa memberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree.At the
timehefiled thepetition,thepetitioneridentifiedhimselfasaresearchscientistandimaginganalystat
theCardiovascularandImagingResearchFoundationof NewYork (CIRF),in NewYork, NewYork.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)recordsindicatethatthepetitionercurrentlyholds
H-1B nonimmigrantstatuspermittinghim to work at the The
recordbeforethe AAO doesnot revealthenatureof thepei ioners mos recen wor a e ayo
Clinic. Thepetitionerassertsthatanexemptionfromtherequirementof ajob offer,andthusof alabor
certification,is in the nationalinterestof the United States. The directorfound that the petitioner
qualifiesfor classificationasa memberof the professionsholdingan advanceddegree,but thatthe
petitionerhasnot establishedthatanexemptionfrom therequirementof ajob offer wouldbe in the
nationalinterestof theUnitedStates.
Onappeal,thepetitionersubmitsapersonalstatementandtwo witnessletters.
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart:
(2) Aliens Who Are Membersof the ProfessionsHolding AdvancedDegreesor Aliens of
ExceptionalAbility. --
(A) In General.-- Visasshallbemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho are
membersof the professionsholding advanceddegreesor their equivalentor who
becauseof their exceptionalability in thesciences,arts,or business,will substantially
benefitprospectivelythenationaleconomy,culturalor educationalinterests,or welfare
of theUnitedStates,andwhoseservicesin thesciences,arts,professions,or business
aresoughtby anemployerin theUnitedStates.
(B) Waiverof JobOffer-
(i) . . . theAttorneyGeneralmay,whenthe AttomeyGeneraldeemsit to be in
thenationalinterest,waivetherequirementsof subparagraph(A) thatanalien's
servicesin the sciences,arts,professions,or businessbe soughtby anemployer
in theUnited States.
The directordid not disputethat the petitionerqualifiesasa memberof the professionsholdingan
advanceddegree.Thesoleissuein contentionis whetherthepetitionerhasestablishedthatawaiverof
thejob offerrequirement,andthusalaborcertification,is in thenationalinterest.
Page3
Neitherthe statutenor the pertinentregulationsdefinethe term "nationalinterest." Additionally,
Congressdid not providea specificdefinitionof "in the nationalinterest." The Committeeon the
Judiciarymerelynotedin itsreportto theSenatethatthecommitteehad"focusedonnationalinterestby
increasingthe numberandproportionof visasfor immigrantswho would benefit the United States
economicallyandotherwise.. . ." S.Rep.No.55,101stCong.,1stSess.,11(1989).
Supplementaryinformationto regulationsimplementingthe ImmigrationAct of 1990(IMMACT),
publishedat56Fed.Reg.60897,60900(November29,1991),states:
The Service[now USCIS]believesit appropriateto leavetheapplicationof this test
asflexible aspossible,althoughclearlyanalienseekingto meetthe[nationalinterest]
standardmust make a showing significantly abovethat necessaryto prove the
"prospectivenationalbenefit"[requiredof aliensseekingto qualifyas"exceptional."]
Theburdenwill restwith thealiento establishthatexemptionfrom, or waiverof, the
job offer will bein thenationalinterest.Eachcaseis to bejudgedon its ownmerits.
Matter of New YorkStateDept.of Transportation,22 I&N Dec.215 (Commr.1998),hassetforth
severalfactorswhichmustbeconsideredwhenevaluatingarequestfor anationalinterestwaiver. First,
it mustbeshownthatthealienseeksemploymentin anareaof substantialintrinsicmerit. Next,it must
beshownthattheproposedbenefitwill benationalin scope.Finally,thepetitionerseekingthewaiver
mustestablishthatthealienwill servethenationalinterestto a substantiallygreaterdegreethanwould
anavailableU.S.workerhavingthesameminimumqualifications.
It mustbenotedthat,whilethenationalinterestwaiverhingesonprospectivenationalbenefit,it clearly
mustbe establishedthatthe alien'spastrecordjustifiesprojectionsof futurebenefitto thenational
interest.Thepetitioner'ssubjectiveassurancethatthealienwill, in thefuture,servethenationalinterest
cannotsufficeto establishprospectivenationalbenefit. Theinclusionof theterm"prospective"is used
hereto requirefuturecontributionsby thealien,ratherthanto facilitatetheentryof analienwith no
demonstrableprior achievements,and whosebenefit to the nationalinterestwould thus be entirely
speculative.
Wealsonotethattheregulationat 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(2)defines"exceptionalability" as"a degree
of expertisesignificantlyabovethatordinarilyencountered"in agivenareaof endeavor.By statute,
aliensof exceptionalability are generallysubjectto thejob offer/laborcertificationrequirement;
they arenot exemptby virtue of their exceptionalability. Therefore,whethera given alien seeks
classificationas an alien of exceptionalability, or as a memberof the professionsholding an
advanceddegree,that aliencannotqualify for a waiverjust by demonstratinga degreeof expertise
significantlyabovethatordinarilyencounteredin hisor herfield of expertise.
Thepetitionerfiled theFormI-140petitiononDecember7,2007.At thattime,counselstated:
[Thepetitioner]seeksemploymentin thefieldof biomedicalresearch.Specifically,[the
petitioner's]recentresearchattheBurnhamInstitutefor MedicalResearchwasfocused
Page4
on the mechanismsunderlyingpathogenesisof motorneurondiseasesincludinglate-
onsetAmyotrophicLateralSclerosis(ALS) andearly-onsetSpinalMuscularAtrophy
(SMA). Thegoalof theresearchis to identifymoleculartargetsfor earlydetectionand
therapeutictreatmentof motorneurondiseases.
CounselthendiscussedALS andSMA at length,althoughthepetitionerwasno longerworkingwith
thoseailmentsatthetimehefiled thepetition.Counselthenstatedthatthepetitioner
hasalsodelvedintoanotherintriguingfield,thegenerationof biologicalpacemakercells
for the treatmentof cardiovasculardiseases.. . . [The petitioner]hasestablisheda
complexin vitro co-culturesystemof neuralcrestcells (NCC) and cardiomyocytes
derivedfrom embryonicstemcells (ESC). His findingssignificantlyadvancedthe
studiesin thegenerationof biologicalpacemakers.
Bothof theaboveprojectstookplaceatthe wherethe
beneficiar trainedasa ostdoctoralresearchfellowfrom2002to 2006.Hesubsequentlyworkedatthe
from November2006to April 2007,andat CIRF thereafter,but counsel's
introductoryletterdidnotaddressthismorerecentwork.
On Form ETA-750B, Statementof Qualificationsof Alien, the petitionerprovidedthe following
descriptionof hismostrecentwork:
Imaginganalysisandclinical researchon differentcardiovascularimagingmodalities
including CT angiography(CTA) and Magneticresonanceangiography(MRA) to
assessand developnovel diagnosticexaminationtechnologiesfor cardiovascular
diseases.Projectsinclude:CTA applicationin USMedicarepatients,anomalousorigin
of coronaryartery,cardiacfunctionalandaorticparameters,etc.
Thepetitionersubmittedfive witnessletters. Like counsel'sletter,theselettersfocusedon work that
the beneficiaryperformedat the BIMR; four of the five witnessesare current or former BIMR
researchers.Thewitnessesdid notmentionthepetitioner'swork afterheleft theBIMR, or explainhow
his work attheBIMR relatesto his currentefforts.
an associateprofessorat BIMR, statedthat the petitioner"is conducting
innovativeresearchin thefield of neurosciencerelatingto motorneurondegenerativediseases."The
recordcontainsno evidencethatthepetitionerwasstill pursuingsuchresearchasof lateNovember
2007,when wrotethatletter. Thepetitioner'sown descriptionof his then-currentwork at
BIMR did notmentionneuroscienceor degenerativediseases.Malso statedthatthepetitioner
"has,overthecourseof morethan4 years,becomeanindispensablememberof ourresearchteam,"and
consistentlyreferredto thepetitionerasthoughthepetitionerstill workedat BIMR in late2007,even
thoughthepetitionerhimselfclaimedtohaveleftthatinstitutioninOctober2006.
Regardingthepetitioner'swork at
Page5
[Thepetitioner]joinedmylaboratoryin December2002.. . .
Amyotrophiclateralsclerosis(ALS) andSpinalMuscularAtrophy(SMA) areone[sic]
of themajorneurodegenerativediseasesalongsideAlzheimer'sdiseaseandParkinson's
disease.. . . [The petitioner's]researchwork andhis importantresearchcontributions
focus on molecularand cellular mechanismsof thesemotor neurondiseases.. . .
Currently, there is no treatmentthat substantiallyslows•motorneuron diseases
progression.Theprogressin ourunderstandingof thepathogenesisof thediseasewill
leadto newandeffectivetreatments.. . .
Theresearchin theareaof a novelproteinmembralinholdsthekey to achievingthe
goalof curingor preventingthediseaseof motorneurondegeneration.. . . [T]o make
betteruse of biotechnologyto serveour needs,we needto know the mechanisms
governingthemalfunctionof membralinin motorneurondegeneration.[Thepetitioner]
hasmademajor stridesin this area. He is the first to discoverthe involvementof
membralinin the pathogenesisof motor neurondegeneration.. . . The result of [the
petitioner's] researchprovides direct information on the possibletherapiesand
preventionfor motorneurondiseases.
declaredplansto publishthepetitioner'swork in the
epeatedtheassertionthatthebeneficiary'sworkwith membralin"is
currently being written for publication in a major neurosciencejoumal such as
Hefurtherstated:
[E]lectronicimplantablepacemakershavemultiple associatedrisks . . . andrequire
frequentpowersourcechanges.. . . A bettertherapyfor suchdiseaseswouldbeto repair
or replacethe defectivepacemaking/conductingcells.. . . [Thepetitioner's]findings
haveprovidedfor thefirst time evidencethat will helpto elucidatethemechanismsof
developmentof sino-atrialpacemakercells of embryonicheartsin order to develop
biologicalpacemakercellsfromembryonicstemcellsfor futurehumantherapy.
assistantprofessorat statedthatthepetitioner's"in vitro co-
culturesystemto study[the] fateof thepacemakercells . . . maysuggeststrateies for developing
efficientandneuro-coupledcardiacpacemakersfrom" embryonicstemcells. stated:"I am
confidentthathis blicationswill soonappearin prestigiousandauthoritativejournals,suchasthe
Page6
nowanassociateprofessoratthe
stated:
I haveknown[thepetitioner]for morethansevenyears.I cameto knowhim in
whenhejoinedthe . . Wehad
regularjoint labmeetings.. . . Wehadfurthercollaborationsin theU.S.from 2002[to]
2006,whenboth of us joined The as postdoctoral
researchscientists.Duringhis stayat The e madeseveralmajor
accomplishments,which have contributed greatly to our understandingof
neurodegenerativediseases,especiallyin motor neuron diseases. These works
conductedby [the petitioner]haveestablishedhimself as a leadingscientistin the
neuroscienceresearchfields.
statedthatthepetitioner'sworkwith membralin"changedourunderstandingin thisscientific
puzzle"and"hasgivenusa completelynewscopeof knowledgeto understand""humanmotorneural
diseases,"andthatthepetitioner's"promisingfindings. . . significantlyadvancedthe studiesin the
generationof biologicalpacemakers."
Theon1 witnesswhowasnot workin at while thepetitionerwastherei
Curriculavitaein therecordshowtha worked
with
's postdoctoral ntmentat andthatthetwo researcherscollaboratedona2004article
in did not claim expertiserelatingto motor neurondiseasesor cardiac
pacemakercells. tated:"My researcheffortshavefocusedon theearlydetection
of gastriccancer.. . . My otherresearchinterestis to usegenomicsandproteomicsto studyTraditional
ChineseMedicine."Regardingthepetitioner'swork stated:
Our sharedresearchinterests[in] discoveringdiseasesrelatedhumangenes[sic] have
drawn my attentionto [the petitioner's] work, which I believehas addedsignificant
insightsto thefields[of] humangenomicsandneuroscience.. . . [Thepetitioner's]work
hasinspiredmy ownresearch.. . .
[Thepetitioner's]workhasprovidedscientistsin theareaapromisingpathto study. . .
neurodegenerativediseases.[Thepetitioner's]effortswill soonbepublishedin ahighly
prestigious,peer-reviewed
Almostall of thewitnessesassertedthatthebeneficiary'sworkwassoonto bepublishedin theJournal
of Neuroscience,buttherecordcontainsno evidencethatthejournalacceptedor publishedthearticle.
Thepetitioner'scurriculumvitaelistseightitemsundertheheading"publications."Fourof thelisted
itemswere conferencepresentations.The remainingfour itemswerelisted as "submitted"or "in
preparation."This indicatesthat,at thetime thepetitionerfiled thepetition,hehadnot hadanyfull
articlespublishedin anypeer-reviewedscholarlyjournal.
Page7
OnMarch4,2009,thedirectorinstructedthepetitionerto submitevidenceof theimpactof hisworkin
thefield. In response,counseldiscussed"advancesachievedin | laboratory"in
the yearssincethe petitionerleft thatlaboratory,andassertedthatthis progress"demonstrate[s]the
majorimpactmade the etitioner]throughhisresearch,"withoutwhich
In hissecondletter, stated:
[The petitioner] was the first to discoverthe involvementof membralinin the
pathogenesisof motorneurondegeneration.The resultof [the petitioner's]research
provideddirectinformationon thepossibletherapiesandpreventionfor motorneuron
diseases.
Following[thepetitioner's]ground-breakingwork on membralin,my grouphassince
identifiedanimportantlink to itsbiologicalfunctionin motorneuronsurvival. We have
found that membralininteractswith a proteintermedsurvivalmotorneuron(SMN),
whichisthecausalgenefor spinalmuscularatrophy.Giventhesimilarityof thedisease
phenotypebetweenthe membralinandSMN null mice,membralinmay play a role
upstreamof SMN in motorneuronsurvival. Wehavealsodeterminedthatmembralin
residesin theendoplasmicreticulum(ER)membraneand,therefore,theinteractionof
membralinwith SMNpointstothecriticalroleof thesetwoproteinsin ERfunction.. . .
Without [thepetitioner's]pastresearchcontributions,we couldnot havereachedour
currentlevel of understandingof motor neurondiseaseand its underlyingmolecular
mechanisms.
Thepetitioner'sresponseto thedirector'snoticeconsisted,in effect,of theassertionthatthelaboratory
wherethe petitionerusedto work continuesto researchmembralin. assertedthat his
laboratoryhas be n "collaboratin i n associateprofessorand a pediatric
neurologistin the The petitionersubmitteda printout
re ardin web site, but nothing from
herselfto discussthenatureof thestatedcollaborationor thesignificanceof thebeneficiary's
workin thatcollaboration.
The directordeniedthe petition on July 9, 2009,statingthat the petitioner'switnesslettersfailed to
establishthe significanceor impactof the petitioner'swork. The directoralsonotedthe apparent
absenceof publishedarticlesby thepetitioneratthetimeof filing.
On appeal,thepetitionerprotests"the misjudgmentof thesignificanceof my work on motorneuron
degenerativediseaseassociatedwith a novelmicemodelbasedon my studyof thegenemembralin."
Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimthatheis still involvedin thatproject,andhedoesnotevendescribehis
morerecentwork,letaloneestablishitsimportance.Thenationalinterestwaiverisnotsimplyareward
for pastwork,butameansbywhichtheUnitedStatescansecurethecontinuedservicesof alienswhose
worksubstantiallysetsthemapartfromtheirpeers.
Page8
Thepetitionerassertsthathis work on the"membralinproject"hasyieldeda "manuscript[that]will
soonbe publishedin theleadingpeer-reviewedjournal- In this way,the
petitionerechoesunsubstantiatedclaimsfromtwentymonthsearlier. Therecorddoesnotcontainany
evidencefrom thepublisherof the to confirmtheclaimthatthepetitioner's
article"will soonbepublished"in thatjournal.
Thepetitionersubmitstwo lettersthataredatedbeforethepetitionerrespondedto the March2009
requestfor evidence,but which did not acc that res onse. Mssistant
clinicalprofessorof neuroradiologyatthe tates:
I completeda post-doctoralresearchfellowshipat The
whereI hadthepleasureto becomeintimatelyacquaintedwith [thepetitioner]and
hisscholarlywork.. . .
Theresultof [thepetitioner's]researchprovidesdirectinformationonpossibletherapies
to preventthis classof motorneurondiseases.. . . [The petitioner's]researchis of
specificandprimaryinterestto thepharmaceuticalindustry,aswell asto thenationasa
whole.. . . [Thepetitioner's]work will soonbe publishedin a leadingpeer-reviewed
internationaljournal- JournalofNeuroscience."
ates:
[O]ne of the most frustratingpredicamentsbesettingresearchon motor neuron
degenerationis theinadequacyof propertoolsto elucidatethemechanismby whichthis
humandiseaseprogresses.. . . [Thepetitioner's]membralinknockoutmicemodelhas
provideduswith suchapossibility.Wehavebeenwatchinghisprogressin thepastfew
yearsandtherecentnewfindingshavelightedupourhope.. . . [Thepetitioner's]latest
study has also shownthe membralinmutationin humanpatientsand is leadingthe
project to a more clinical direction.
Thereferencesto thepetitioner's"lateststudy"andhis"progressin thepastfew years"arenotentirely
clear.As wehavealreadyobserved,thebeneficiaryhadleft in 2006,morethanayearbeforehe
filed thepetition,andhisowndescriptionof his subsequentworkgaveno indicationthathecontinued
toperformresearchrelatedto degenerativeneurologicaldisorders.
Theopinionsof expertsin thefield arenotwithoutweightandhavebeenconsideredabove.USCIS
may,in its discretion,useasadvisoryopinionsstatementssubmittedasexperttestimony.SeeMatter
of CaronInternational,19 I&N Dec.791,795 (Comm'r. 1988). However,USCISis ultimately
responsiblefor makingthefinal determinationregardinganalien'seligibility for thebenefitsought.
Id. The submissionof lettersfrom expertssupportingthe petition is not presumptiveevidenceof
eligibility; USCISmay, aswe havedoneabove,evaluatethecontentof thoselettersasto whether
theysupportthealien'seligibility. Seeid. at795. USCISmayevengivelessweightto anopinion
Page9
thatis not corroborated,in accordwith otherinformationor is in anyway questionable.Id. at 795;
seealsoMatterof Soffici,22 I&N Dec.158,165(Comm'r. 1998)(citingMatter of TreasureCraftof
California,14I&N Dec.190(Reg'l.Comm'r.1972)).
Thepetitioner,in thisproceeding,hasoverwhelminglyreliedonlettersfromwitnessesfrom who
workeddirectlywith thepetitionerandwhoclaim,in theabsenceof anycorroboratingevidence,that
thepublicationof thebeneficiary'sworkin the )asbeenimminentsince2007.
Noneof the letterscontainanyspecificreferenceto work thepetitionerhasundertakensince2006.
Assertionsregardingthe greatsignificanceof the petitioner'swork at fail to accountfor the
apparentlackof anypublishedarticles,or evenconferencepresentations,relatingto thatwork.
The petitioner, on appeal, assertsthat "considerationof confidentiality of the unpublished
intellectual property" has "temporarily" resulted in "limited accessibility" of the petitioner's
findings,an assertionthat appearsto be in directoppositionto theassertionthathis work at
has alreadyhad a significant impact on neurologicalresearch. Assumingthat confidentiality
concernshavepreventedwiderdistributionof thepetitioner'sfindings,this would necessarilylimit
theopportunitiesfor thepetitioner'swork to influenceothersin thefield. As it stands,therecord
containsverylittle evidenceof awarenessof thepetitioner'swork outsideof , andnoevidence
of thesignificanceof thepetitioner'swork for asuccessionof subsequentemployers.
As is clearfrom a plain readingof the statute,it wasnot the intentof Congressthat everyperson
qualifiedto engagein aprofessionin theUnitedStatesshouldbeexemptfromtherequirementof ajob
offer basedon nationalinterest.Likewise,it doesnot appearto havebeenthe intentof Congressto
grantnationalinterestwaiversonthebasisof theoverallimportanceof a givenprofession,ratherthan
on themeritsof the individualalien. On thebasisof theevidencesubmitted,the petitionerhasnot
establishedthata waiverof therequirementof anapprovedlaborcertificationwill be in thenational
interestof theUnitedStates.
The burdenof proof in theseproceedingsrestssolelywith the petitioner. Section291 of the Act,
8U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
This decisionis without prejudiceto the filing of a new petition by a United Statesemployer
accompaniedby a labor certification issuedby the Departmentof Labor, appropriatesupporting
evidenceandfee.
ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.