dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Biomedical Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 0 6 2009 
LIN 07 027 52917 
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. 8 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any fkther inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Administrative Appeals Off~ce 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, or as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. At the time she filed the petition, the petitioner was a doctoral 
student at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As of this writing in February 2009, the 
petitioner is a postdoctoral researcher at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. The petitioner 
asserts that an exemption fiom 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 the 
classification sought, but that the petitioner has not established that an exemption fiom the requirement 
of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a lengthy statement, disputing the stated grounds for denial. 
Section 203@) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. -- 
(A) In General. -- Visas shall be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will .substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer. 
(i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The AAO will discuss this issue later in this decision. The sole stated basis for denial 
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,lO 1 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1 989). 
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 of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Comrnr. 1998), has set forth 
several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, 
it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must 
be shown 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. 
It must be noted that, 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. 
We also note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 offerllabor 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. 
In a statement accompanying the initial filing of the petition, the petitioner described her work: 
I helped develop a drug called Angiocidin, which . . . targets specific molecules on the 
vasculature that prevents the growth of rnicrovessels. . . . [Tlhe drug targets molecules 
that are only expressed on the growing vasculature of the tumor and not on normal cells. 
My work was pivotal in identifjlng the molecule that angiocidin binds on endothelial 
' Page 4 
cells. 
 The molecule is a specific integrin-adhesion molecule, which enables the 
endothelial cells to bind to the matrix material that surrounds the growing vessels. This 
material called the extracellular matrix (ECM) is unique to the growing tumor and is an 
excellent target for development of cancer therapeutics. My work has shown that 
angiocidin binds to specific components of the extracellular matrix as well as important 
integrin-cellular receptors that help the endothelial cells attach to the ECM. . . . 
My research on developing a prognostic marker for early detection of hepatocellular 
carcinoma resulted in significant discoveries that could help find a new marker to detect 
hepatocellular cancer. I discovered that angiocidin, a novel-tumor associated protein is 
found elevated in patients with worsening stage and intra-hepatic metastasis. 
The petitioner asserts that, as a nonimmigrant, she has difficulty securing her own grant funding to 
support her research, and that her research is of such an urgent nature that her Mer work should not 
be delayed by the labor certification process. The petitioner did not explain why she could not conduct 
her research while an application for labor certification is pending, in the same way that she is already 
conducting research in the United States. 
The ~etitioner submitted ei&t witness letters. half of which are from researchers and officials at Tern~le 
confirm the petitioner's claim to have "helwed develo~ a drug called Ankocidin." Rather, = 
- - 
stated that his research group discovered ansocidin in 1993, nearly a decade before the 
petitioner's arrival at Temple. Regarding the petitioner's role in the angiocidin project, - 
stated: 
[The petitioner's] very first project in our laboratory as a master's student was to 
develop an angiocidin enzyme-linked irnmunoadsorbant assay (ELISA), a biochemical 
test to measure levels of angiocidin in biological fluids. . . . She found that angiocidin 
levels were elevated in the sera of patients suffering from many cancers. . . . In the liver 
cancer patients her results indicated that blood levels of angiocidin correlated with the 
worsening stage of the disease as well as being an early blood marker for predicting the 
presence of disease. . . . 
[The petitioner's] second project involved modifjrlng her ELISA assay to measure 
angiocidin protein binding to potential w-receptors. She found that angiocidin was able 
to bind to protein chains attached to polypeptide chains of ubiquitin, an important 
regulator of protein degradation. . . . 
[The petitioner's] third project identified the cell receptor for angiocidin. . . . [Slhe found 
that angiocidin bound a cell surface receptor known as the integrin alpha2betal protein. 
Thls is a seminal discovery because this class of receptor proteins has never before been 
shown to play a direct role in cancer progression. 
Page 5 
Others at Temple praised the petitioner in more general terms. -stated she "has 
a great potential to make major contributions with a high impact," and stated 
that her "work in early detection and development of an anti-angiogenic therapy in the field of Cancer 
Research is of great national impact." , Dean of Temple University School of 
Medicine, asserted that the petitioner's "research results on identification of a cell surface receptor 
protein have achieved significant recognition." 
thesis committee, stated that the petitioner "has developed a cancer test and identified a novel cancer 
cell receptor that can be targeted for development of novel cancer therapeutics. These cancer therapies 
and tests can only be developed in the United States under [the petitioner's] supervision and guidance." 
Because a number of witnesses, such as, have directly linked the petitioner's waiver claim 
to her research in laboratory, it is worth noting that the petitioner left Temple 
University a few months after she filed her petition. The record does not indicate whether or not Prof. 
-up ceased its efforts to develop "[tlhese cancer therapies and tests" upon the petitioner's 
departure. 
Furthermore, the petitioner's initial submission included a letter fiom - of 
Targeted Cancer Therapeutics, Inc. (TCTI), Hopkinton, Massachusetts. ~r.=stated: 
I am pleased to offer [the petitioner] a research position in our biophmaceutical 
Company. . . . [The petitioner] has been highly recommended for th~s position by our 
Chief Scientific Officer '. . . . [The petitioner's] expertise and 
research is ideally suited for 
 [her] the opportunity to further 
develop the work she started with 
The petitioner's subsequent employment history demonstrates that she did not accept TCTI's offer of 
employment. The record therefore establishes that, given the opportunity "to further develop the work 
she started with ' whch forms the whole basis for her waiver claim, the petitioner opted 
instead to seek other employment. USCIS records show that the petitioner instead worked at Thomas 
Jefferson University in Philadelphia for less than a year, before moving to Northwestem University in 
the Chicago area. 
The remaining witnesses are not located at Temple, but each of them has collaborated with Prof. 
in the past. 
 f Oncology Research at Cephalon, Inc., West 
Chester, Pennsylvania, stated: 
was my colleague when I worked in the - at 
MCP-Hahnemann University. . . . 
I was delighted to find out that [the petitioner] has completed three studies relating to the 
protein angiocidin. . . . She has made considerable progress in understanding how 
Page 6 
angiocidin inhibits angiogenesis and how it can be used as a serum tumor marker. [The 
petitioner] discovered a cell surface docking protein (alpha2betal integrin) for 
angiocidin and a specific test . . . to measure the amounts of angiocidin in the blood of 
cancer patients. . . . I am very impressed with these stellar accomplishments of such a 
young student, who should have a very promising career as a research scientist. 
I received my residency traini 
the mentorship of 1 
advisor. . . . 
Although I have not met [the petitioner], I have avidly read her papers. Additionally, I 
have been collaborating with her mentor on a number of studies including a study to 
evaluate the significance of angiocidin in the serum of cancer patients. [The petitioner] 
is working on pioneering research in the field of angiogenesis in cancer research. 
I first met [the petitioner] . . . in the Spring of 2005 when she presented a poster on the 
work that she had done in collaboration with myself and her advisor. . . . [The 
petitioner's] results are highly significant because they indicate that the irnmunoassay 
[she] developed can be used as a blood test for liver cancer and may help physicians like 
myself choose the appropriate therapy for my patients. 
The petitioner submitted substantial quantities of background evidence concerning cancer research in 
general, and antiangiogenesis research in particular. These materials establish the intrinsic merit and 
national scope of her work, but they do not establish that the petitioner has had, or is likely to continue 
to have, an impact in this field that exceeds that of other qualified workers in the same specialty. 
The petitioner also submitted copies of her published and presented work. This material establishes that 
the petitioner has been productive in her field but does not, by its very existence, establish the 
petitioner's eligibility for the waiver. Witnesses asserted that the petitioner's writings have been 
influential, but all of those witnesses have demonstrable ties to the petitioner or to Prof Tuszynski. If 
the petitioner's work has been widely cited, then documentary evidence must exist of those citations. 
On January 22, 2008, the director instructed the petitioner to "submit any available documentary 
evidence that, as of the petition priority date, you had a degree of influence on your field that 
distinguishes you from other scientists with comparable academic/professional qualifications." The 
director mentioned independent citations as one form of acceptable evidence. 
In response, the petitioner stated: 
Page 7 
I am a Cancer Researcher in the Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Biological 
Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. Presently, I am independently 
spearheading a research project characterizing the functional role and mechanism of 
action of Prostate-Derived Ets Factor (PDEF) in both prostate and breast cancer 
progression and metastasis. With a Ph.D. degree in Biology . . . and Postdoctoral 
training in a Proteomics Laboratory, I have a strong theoretical and technical research 
experience, and I have already acquired significant achievements in my area of research 
in a very short span of time. 
The petitioner discussed details of her work at Northwestern, as well as her work at Thomas 
Jefferson University in 2007 and early 2008. The beneficiary of an immigrant visa petition must be 
eligible based on his or her qualifications at the time of filing. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
45, 49 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971). The petitioner filed the present petition on November 20, 2006. We 
will consider the petitioner's post-2006 work only insofar as it confirms that the petitioner continues 
to be involved in cancer research. Also, this information demonstrates that the petitioner no longer 
works on the specific angiocidin projects previously cited as being central to the waiver claim. If the 
waiver claim is based in large part on the assertion that the petitioner is indispensable to a specific 
research project, we cannot ignore the petitioner's subsequent departure from that project for reasons 
unrelated to immigration considerations. 
Extending even further past the petition's filing date, the petitioner stated: "After completion of my 
postdoctoral research training at Northwestern University, I would be superior to my colleagues who 
have received the same doctoral degree because of my technical expertise and strong cancer research 
theoretical background.'' Pursuant to Katigbak, we cannot find that the petitioner was eligible for the 
waiver as of November 2006 because, more than a year later, the petitioner asserted that she would 
eventually complete training that would make her "superior to [her] colleagues." 
The petitioner submitted documentation showing eight citations of her work, six of whch are self- 
citations by the petitioner andlor her co-authors, particularly One of the two articles to 
independently cite the petitioner's work was submitted for publication in September 2007, meaning 
only one documented independent citation existed as of the petition's November 2006 filing date. 
Four new letters accompanied the petitioner's response to the request for evidence. 
 in 
his second letter, asserted that the petitioner "was the strongest of the 8 graduate students who have 
completed a PhD within my group bver the last 35 years." 
 stated that the petitioner's 
"work has been cited by numerous investigators," but as discussed above, nearly all the citations of the 
petitioner's work appear in articles co-authored by himself Self-citation and citation of 
colleagues are certainly accepted practices in academia, and indeed are to be expected as researchers 
follow up on their own prior work. Nevertheless, such citations are not strong evidence of the 
petitioner's impact and influence outside of her own research groups. 
Page 8 
that the petitioner "received international recognition" for "developing an angiocidin ELISA assay," but 
did not specify the nature of this recognition or provide any first-hand evidence thereof. 
The remaining two letters are fiom faculty members of Thomas Jefferson University, describing work 
that the petitioner conducted there. As noted previously, activities that the petitioner undertook after the 
petition's filing date cannot retroactively establish that she was already eligible when she filed the 
petition. The witnesses do not indicate that the petitioner continued her past work with angiocidin. 
Rather, they indicate that the petitioner acquainted herself with previously unfamiliar biology and 
laboratory equipment in order to work on new projects there. 
The director denied the petition on April 23, 2008, stating that the petitioner's "achievements do not 
establish the petitioner has reached a degree of accomplishment that is substantially greater than her 
colleagues." On appeal, the petitioner contends that the director did not give sufficient consideration to 
her contributions and recognition in the field. We have already discussed the petitioner's prior 
submissions and need not repeat that discussion here. Pursuant to section 291 of the Act, the burden of 
proof is on the party seeking immigration benefits. The petitioner, therefore, must establish the 
significance of what she has submitted; the director is not required to put forth a point-by-point rebuttal 
of the petitioner's claims and evidence. 
The petitioner asserts that she submitted several "supporting letters from . . . independent appraisers" 
(the petitioner's emphasis). All of those witnesses, however, are either Temple officials or 
collaborators. The witness distribution, along with the citation pattern of her published 
work, indicates that the petitioner's reputation was largely confined to 
 professional 
orbit at the time she filed the petition. 
The petitioner asserts that her achievements as a postdoctoral trainee should be taken into consideration. 
For reasons already explained, the petitioner's work after the filing date cannot retroactively establish 
eligibility. Such work can only be considered in the context of a new petition, filed after the activities 
took place. The AAO takes no position, here, as to whether or not those activities would qualify her for 
a national interest waiver. 
The petitioner protests: "The labor certification process is lengthy and employer-oriented. . . . Most 
importantly in this unsettled economy, most employers are reluctant to sponsor me . . . because I am a 
foreign national." Nothing in the legislative history suggests that the national interest waiver was 
intended simply as a means for employers (or self-petitioning aliens) to avoid the inconvenience of the 
labor certification process. Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation at 223. Also, these 
general assertions arguably apply to all aliens in the petitioner's field, and thus do not demonstrate that 
the petitioner, as an individual, merits a waiver. Congress created no blanket waiver for alien 
researchers, and therefore such general arguments regarding the state of the petitioner's field carry little 
weight in this proceeding. 
The record demonstrates that the petitioner is a productive and dedicated cancer researcher, who has 
earned the respect and admiration of her collaborators and mentors. Assertions regarding the promise 
Page 9 
of her work may yet bear hit, but as of the November 2006 filing date, the petition was at best 
premature. The AAO will, therefore, dismiss the appeal. 
Review of the record reveals a factor of concern beyond the decision of the director. The AAO 
maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 8 557(b) ("On appeal 
from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making 
the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. US. 
Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has 
been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 
1989). 
The petitioner has more than one indicated that she seeks classification as "[a] member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability." The petitioner has not 
specified which of these two distinct classification she seeks. Review of the record does not lead the 
AAO to conclude that she qualified for either classification as of the petition's filing date. 
The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(k)(2) includes the following definition: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If 
a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a 
United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(k)(3)(i) states that, to show that the alien is a professional holding an advanced 
degree, the petition must be accompanied by: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has an United States advanced 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree; or 
(B) An official academic record showing that the alien has a United States 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of 
letters fiom current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least five 
years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
At the time she filed the petition, the petitioner did not hold, or claim to hold, any academic degree 
higher than a baccalaureate degree fiom Bharathiar University in India. Therefore, the petitioner did 
not hold an advanced degree as of November 2006. That she received her Ph.D. a few months later is 
irrelevant for our purposes; it remains that she did not hold it yet when she filed the petition, and the 
regulations make no allowance for imminent degrees. The evidence submitted must establish eligibility 
as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
103.2(b)(12); also Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N 49. 
Page 10 
Next, we must consider whether the petitioner possessed the required post-baccalaureate experience that 
the regulations require in lieu of an actual advanced degree. With respect to the petitioner's degree 
from India, the petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence to show that this degree (whch the 
petitioner earned in three years) is equivalent to a United States baccalaureate degree (which is typically 
a four-year degree). There is no presumption that the words "bachelor" or "baccalaureate" on a foreign 
degree establish equivalence with a United States degree by the same name. A United States 
baccalaureate degree is generally found to require four years of education. Matter of Shah, 17 I&N 
Dec. 244 (Reg. Cornm. 1977). Without evidence to show that the petitioner's baccalaureate degree is 
equivalent to a United States baccalaureate degree, none of her subsequent work experience can be 
considered "post-baccalaureate" as the regulations contemplate that term. 
With respect to the petitioner's post-collegiate experience, a letter fiom Hi-Tech Clinical Laboratory at 
Rathna Medical Centre, Coimbatore, India, indicates that the petitioner "is employed in our 
organization fiom 28' June 1998 as Junior Research Assistant." The letter is dated July 29, 2000, and 
therefore the letter documents 25 months of employment. Another employment letter refers to work the 
petitioner performed in 1997, before she completed her first degree, and therefore such employment 
cannot be regarded as "post-baccalaureate" in any sense of the term. 
The record is silent regarding the petitioner's activities fiom August 2000 to August 2002. Thereafter, 
the petitioner was a graduate student at Temple University. The AAO does not consider graduate study 
to be post-baccalaureate experience in lieu of a degree. For purposes of immigrant classification, 
graduate study is credited to the petitioner upon completion of such study and the awarding of a degree. 
The alternative clause defined at 8 C.F.R. $5 204.50<)(2) and (3)(i)(B) refers to employment experience 
pursued in lieu of an advanced degree, rather than to unfinished graduate studies involving part-time 
ancillary duties. For this reason, the AAO does not consider that the petitioner's doctoral studies, which 
were incomplete as of November 2006, constitute progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the 
specialty. Rather, those studies constitute required training in that specialty. We note the requirement 
in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5&)(2) that if a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien 
must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. The petitioner now holds a United 
States doctorate, conferred in January 2007, but this was not the case at the time of filing. 
For the reasons discussed above, the AAO finds that the petitioner did not hold an advanced degree or 
its defined equivalent at the time she filed the petition. Next, we must consider the petitioner's 
eligibility as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth six criteria, at least three of which an alien must 
meet in order to qualify as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, the arts, or business. We note 
that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.50(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. Therefore, evidence 
submitted to establish exceptional ability must somehow place the alien above others in the field in 
order to fblfill the criteria below. Qualifications possessed by all or most workers in a given field 
cannot demonstrate "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered." For 
Page 11 
example, every qualified physician has a college degree and a license or certification, but it defies logic 
to claim that every physician therefore shows "exceptional" traits. 
An oficial academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certzJicate, 
or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning 
relating to the area of exceptional ability. 
As noted above, when she filed the petition, the petitioner's only college degree was a three-year 
baccalaureate. The record indicates that such a degree does not establish a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered among cancer researchers. The petitioner's then- 
unfinished doctoral studies cannot count as a degree in this regard. The petitioner did not meet this 
criterion as of the filing date. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the 
alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or 
she is being sought. 
The petitioner does not meet this criterion. As noted previously, the petitioner has not even 
established five years of experience in her specialty, let alone ten years of full-time experience in her 
intended occupation. 
A license to practice the profession or certzjication for a particular profession or 
occupation. 
This criterion does not appear to apply to the petitioner's intended field of endeavor. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 
The petitioner submitted no evidence to allow a meaningful comparison between her compensation 
and the remuneration paid to others in the field. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 
The petitioner is an associate member of the American Association for Cancer Research. According 
to an application form in the record, "Associate membership is open to graduate students, medical 
students and residents, and clinical postdoctoral fellows who are enrolled in educational or training 
programs that could lead to careers in cancer research." This level of membership does not 
demonstrate exceptional ability; it is, rather, consistent with unfinished training "that could lead to 
careers in cancer research" at some future time. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and signiJicant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
' Page 12 
Arguably the petitioner's strongest evidence relates to this criterion. The record shows that the 
petitioner twice won second place in the Margulies Outstanding Research Award Competition, an 
annual event held by Temple University's Thrombosis Center. mle the reputation of this award 
outside of Temple University is not clear, the regulation does not require the recognition to be national 
or international in scope. The award, however, does not meet the regulatory threshold that requires the 
petitioner to satisfy at least three of the six criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5&)(3)(ii). 
We conclude that the petitioner has not shown that she qualified for the classification sought, either as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an alien of exceptional ability in the 
sciences, when she filed the petition in 2006. 
As is clear fiom 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 fiom the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national 
interest of the United States. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has 
not sustained that burden. 
This denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States employer accompanied 
by a labor certification issued by the Department of Labor, appropriate supporting evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.