dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Biophysics

(b)(6)
DATE: 'AfR Q 8 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FTI,E: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion 1nu:t h: filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form J-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~on Rosen 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
rage L 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the AAO on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as a member the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a biophysicist. At the time he filed the petition, the petitioner was a 
research associate at the He subsequently began working as a 
postdoctoral researcher at the The petitioner asserts that an 
exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest 
of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner has not established that an exemption 
from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent pmt: 
(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 Uni:ec States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer-
(i) ... the Attomey General may, when the Attomey General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in content': YJ iJ vrhether 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, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, P.L. 101-649, 
104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (Nov. 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 [ m;:~ i · . ::tw l interest] standard must make a showing 
significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national benefit" 
[required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest with the 
alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
In reNew York State Dep 't of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. ld at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. Jd Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve 
the national interest to a substantially greatt;r Jc-gree than would an available U.S. worker having the 
same minimum qualifications. ld at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. ld. at 219. The 
petitioner's assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included 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. ld 
The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 2 0 4 . 5(:~)(:?.) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, 
aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; 
they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore , whether a given alien seeks 
classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on January 10, 2011. In 
an accompanying introductory statement, the petitioner described his work identifying a method for 
purifying ibuprofen, thereby preventin g kidney damage caused by common pain relievers, and his 
studies of troponin , a protein involved in regu!ating the heartbeat. Further details appear in witness 
letters, to be discussed further below. 
The petitioner's field of research has substantial intrinsic merit. The benefit from his occupation is 
national in scope, because the research results appear in widely-published journals. National 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
rage 4 
dissemination of meritorious work meets only the first two prongs of the three-pronged NYSDOT 
national interest test. To meet the third prong, the petitioner must establish his impact and influence 
on the field. 
The petitioner submitted letters from five witnesses. Three of the witnesses are associate professors 
at institutions where the petitioner has trained and/or worked. Specifically, Dr. is at 
where the petitioner was a postdoctoral researcher from 2006 
to 2009; Dr. is at the where 
the petitioner was a research associate from 2009 to 2010; and Dr.: 
petitioner began working in 2010. The other nvJ 1nitial witnesses are Dr. 
scientist at 
where the' 
principal 
and Professor 
The letters 
are not identical, but they contain similar assertions. Some of these similarities are 
evident from discussion of the journals that have published the petitioner's work. Prof. 
stated: 
Dr. 
Published by 
behalf of the 
-the world's leading publisher in science and medicine- on 
... boasts 
a strong impact factor of 3.264. It r;;~.nks among the top 1% of all peer-reviewed 
journals by Moreover, it includes an international editorial board with 
members from China, Germany, Russia, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, 
Singapore, Canada, Spain, and 
numerous other countries . 
. . . boasts a strong impact factor of 2.787, placing it among 
the top 30% of all biotechnology journals. 
stated: ' (impact factor 3.319) is among the top 1% of all research 
journals by 
medicine. Similarly, 
editorial board." 
and is published by the world's leading publisher for science and 
boasts a strong impact factor of 2.596 and an international 
Dr. stated: .. ranks among the top 15% of all biochemistry journals. Likewise, 
boasts a strong impact factor of 2.596 and includes an international editorial 
board with members from the United Kingdom, Israel, and the United States." 
Dr. emphasized different journals, but using similar wording, stating: "The 
is ranked in the top 5% of all biochemistry journals, and 
boasts a strong impact factor of 3.226." ~-------" 
The letters contain factual assertions that the ~~etitioner has not supported with supporting evidence. 
For instance, several letters purport to state the impact factor of but provide different 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
numbers for it. In the absence of supporting evidence, the petitioner has not shown which (if any) of 
the conflicting figures is correct. 
The witnesses focused on two of the petitioner's research achievements. Four of the witnesses 
discussed the petitioner's work relating to the chemical structure of ibuprofen, an ingredient in many 
over-the-counter ain relievers. Prof. letter is a representative example of the discussion of 
this work. Prof. stated: 
[The petitioner] is recognized for advancing our ability to eliminate the risk of kidney 
damage associated with pain relievers. This risk is directly related to ibuprofen's 
chemical structure. Ibuprofen is a chiral molecule, meaning that it can exist in two 
conformations that are mirror image::: done another ... called enantiomers. Due to 
their similar structures, enantiomers are extraordinarily difficult to distinguish from 
one another. ... Since no ... technique was developed for separating ibuprofen 
enantiomers, pain relievers frequently contain both forms of ibuprofen enantiomer, 
even though only one enantiomer imparts the therapeutic benefit. The body must thus 
convert the non-therapeutic ibuprofen enantiomer into the therapeutic ibuprofen. It is 
complications that arise during this process that can debilitate the kidneys . 
. . . An enzyme known as was shown to successfully 
distinguish between enantiomers under precisely controlled physical and chemical 
conditions. However, these conditions could not be identified for ibuprofen because 
the chemical interactions betw;;;.cn ibuprofen and were not sufficiently 
understood. 
In what is recognized as a major advance, [the petitioner] ... performed a series of 
highly sophisticated enzymatic experiments . . . [and] thereby established precise 
conditions under which is able to select the therapeutic ibuprofen. 
In and of itself, this was a major breakthrough, yet [the petitioner] further built on this 
to characterize the precise molecular changes that enable to distinguish the 
ibuprofen enantiomers under different condition .... 
[The petitioner's] characterization of the effects of acidity on definitively 
established the mechanisms through which this bio-molecule distinguishes the 
therapeutic ibuprofen molecule from its non-therapeutic enantiomer. This is a 
seminal advance, providing critical information that will enable us to remove the 
harmful form of ibuprofen. Published in a number of authoritative scientific journals 
... , the significance of [the petitioner 's] findings has thus been widely recognized 
for clearing the pathway for the development of safer pain relievers. 
Three of the four witnesses discussed the petitioner's work with the troponin protein complex. For 
example, Dr. stated: 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The heartbeat is the cyclic rhythm of cardiac muscle contraction and relaxation. This 
process relies on the flow of calcium through the heart muscle. The rhythmic cardiac 
process is regulated by troponin, a group of three proteins that gauges the level of 
calcium in heart muscle and responds by triggering the molecular cascade that causes 
heart muscle to either contract or relax. Mutations in troponin disrupt this process, 
destabilizing the heartbeat and leading to cardiovascular disease - the leading cause 
of death in the United States. Unfortunately, troponin function cannot be restored 
until these mutations and their precise effect on troponin function are identified. This 
requires a full understanding of troponin's complex biochemical structure and 
function. Such an understanding had perplexed researchers for decades, because the 
constant structural changes that this molecule undergoes when calcium binds and 
dissociates from it rendered this task nearly impossible. 
Applying a much more sophisticated technique, [the petitioner] was the first to fully 
characterize troponin's intricate molecular structure and function. This technique, 
known as ... had never been used 
to characterize an entire molecule .... In a highly innovative advance, [the petitioner] 
used to determine the precise distances between the different component pieces 
of the troponin complex. On this basis, he successfully mapped troponin at different 
stages in the heartbeat. [The petitioner] then used this information to determine how 
each piece of troponin contributes to heart muscle excitation and relaxation. It was 
through this original and painstaking technique that he was able to provide new 
information on how troponin may regulate heart muscle contraction . 
. 
. . [The petitioner's] breakthrough discoveries on troponin have greatly advanced 
treatment for heart muscle diseases, as evidenced by his publications and 
presentations and the attention that his work has received. 
The witnesses stated that widespread citation demonstrates the importance of the petitioner's 
published work. The petitioner also asserted that his "publications in leading peer-reviewed 
journals" have led to "numerous citations ... in the published work of other scientists ... in many 
leading scientific journals." 
The petitioner's initial submission indud3d tl:e cover pages of four published articles by the 
petitioner, and abstracts of four of his conference presentations. The petitioner also submitted partial 
copies of seven articles containing citations to the petitioner's published work, and a printout from 
the Google Scholar search engine identifying seven citations (including one self-citation by the 
petitioner). Two of the seven submitted articles (including the self-citation) appear on the citation 
list, and two other submitted articles contain self-citations by the petitioner's co-authors. 
Subtracting these duplications and self-citations, the petitioner documented nine independent 
citations of his work since 2005. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page I 
The petitioner described some examples of these citations, stating, for instance: "a team of Indian 
researchers in the .. detail [the petitioner's] findings on 
the mechanisms through which targets ibuprofen, including his elucidation of the dynamics of 
the flap. They recognize [the petitioner's] findings as a major advance in the study of the 
molecular dynamics of lipases." The article is b) ; research group. Dr. was 
also one of the petitioner's co-authors, making the citatiOn a self·citation. The petitioner submitted a 
copy of the citing article, with relevant passages highlighted. The highlighted passages did not 
describe the petitioner's work "as a major advance." All of the citing authors provided context for 
their citation of the petitioner's work, but tbe b::ghlighted portions of the articles did not indicate that 
the petitioner's work is more significant than the dozens of other works cited in the articles' 
bibliographies. 
The petitioner asserted that the petitioner's standing in the field is further evident from his selection 
"to serve as a manuscript reviewer for 
" The petitioner state : " he practice ot peer review ts a vital one, earned ou by 
all respectable scientific journals." Three of the petitioner's initial witnesses claimed that the 
invitation to review the article was "[b]ased on his recognized expertise." The evidence that the 
petitioner provided does not support this statement. 
The invitation to review an article for 
that reads, in part: 
is in the form of an electronic mail message 
May I invite you, or one of your colleagues, to review a manuscript that has been 
submitted for publication to our on-line journal 
I would be extremely grateful if you or, perhaps, one of your co-workers could accept 
to review that manuscript. . . . If not, any recommendation of another qualified 
colleague familiar with the subject would be highly appreciated. 
The petitioner did not establish the journal's sde ction criteria for peer reviewers, and none of the 
petitioner's witnesses claimed first-hand knowledge of those criteria. The invitation message does 
not indicate that the journal's editors selected the petitioner specifically based on his personal 
reputation in the field, as the petitioner asserted. The invitation applied equally to unnamed 
"colleagues" and "co-workers." 
The evidence that the petitioner provided does not show that participation in peer review is a 
reflection of the petitioner's reputation in his field. Witnesses' claims that the invitation is "[b ]ased 
on his recognized expertise" are unsupported. 
The petitioner also stated: "in further recOi(t!itk·n of his expertise, [the petitioner] was chosen as a 
grant reviewer for the The petitioner submitted no evidence from the 
to show that selection as a grant reviewer rests on "recognition 
ot ... expertise" rather t an on other, more prosaic factors. The only evidence of the petitioner's 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page !S 
grant review work is a printout from the web site, thanking the petitioner for "agreeing to 
help [them] with peer review" and directing the petitioner to "training materials." 
The director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on September 9, 2011, stating that the petitioner 
had submitted "copies of a limited number of articles," but "the impact those articles have had on the 
field is not demonstrated in the record." The director stated that the petitioner had not yet 
established "a past record of specific prior achievement with some degree of influence on the field as 
a whole." 
In response, the petitioner stated that "the initial submission [included] detailed testimonials and 
substantial primary source documentation, all attesting to [the petitioner's] past record of 
achievement and the continuing importance of his work." The petitioner asserted that the witnesses' 
"letters do far more than recognize [the petitioner] for developing the first method to distinguish the 
twin ibuprofen molecules; they also laud the inventiveness and originality of his approach." 
The documentary evidence that the petitioner provided does not give his work the same emphasis 
that the witness letters do. The claimed significance of the petitioner's work with and 
ibuprofen molecules is that his findings will reduce kidney damage that results from metabolism of 
ibuprofen enantiomers. Some of the petitioner's published work on this subject dates back to 2003, 
eight years before the petition's filing date, but the record includes no evidence that any 
manufacturer of ibuprofen-based pain relievers is using the petitioner 's methods or has expressed 
interest in doing do, or that the petitioner' s •,;;iGi'k has led to significant decreases in kidney damage 
caused by ibuprofen enantiomers. 
The petitioner's response to the RFE included three new witness letters. Dr. discovery 
research specialist at , previously trained at 
shortly before the petitioner's arrival there. Dr. stated: 
[The petitioner] determined the conditions under which the 
could select the therapeutic ibuprofen .... He published these findings .. . in 
which stands among the top 16% of all journals according to 
influence. 
[The petitioner 's] pioneering methodology has been directly applied by other 
researchers for the development of safer and more effective pain relievers. For 
instance, his findings formed the basis of an Italian research study, published in the 
... [B]y defining the precise conditions to isolate ibuprofen, [the 
petitioner] enabled these researchers to isolate 
... The importance of his contributions is immeasurable. 
The petitioner's initial submission included an miicle by Italian researchers 
the The article, 
from 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
cited the petitioner's work to support this assertion: 
Reference [9] is the petitioner's article published in ~ in 2003. References [1] 
and [8] refer to articles published in 1998 and 1999, respectively. The introduction to the article 
cited nine articles in all; the text placed no special emphasis on the petitioner's article relative to the 
other cited sources. 
The remaining two new letters both emphasized the same new claim about the petitioner's work. Dr. 
Dr. 
director of stated: 
[The petitioner] determined that must be carefully controlled in order for 
to [filter out dangerous molecules from drugs]. By elucidating the activity of 
this critical biological molecule, [the petitioner] has provided instrumental guidance 
for a number of research teams working toward advancing treatment for a number of 
diseases. 
As one example ofthis reliance on [the petitioner's] research, consider a joint team of 
researchers from Spain and France who used his characterization of activity as 
the basis to propose novel methods for mitigating the symptoms of , 
patients are unable to get the nutrition they need from food due to a 
deficiency of : ... Without a firm understanding of how ~ action 
is compromised by acidic conditions it was impossible to sufficiently boost the 
activity of to reduce the effects of 
As a direct result of [the petitioner's] account of these researchers were able to 
identify precisely how acidic conditions compromise activity .... As a direct 
result of [the petitioner's] findings, researchers were able to successfully define 
the precise effect of on the structure of and thereby engineer 
that was active at acidic which improves our ability to manage 
and control 
a biophysicist at stated: 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The major significance of [the petitioner's] articles in and 
is not merely my opinion. In fact, these articles have been repeatedly 
used by researchers to inform their own original studies. As such, they are 
responsible for advancing treatment on a wide variety of diseases, including those 
that cause nutrient deficiency such [as] At the molecular level, 
nutrients are broken down by a 1Jarticular class of molecules known as lipases. 
Diseases such as deprive the body of vital nutrients by compromising lipase 
action. Scientists have spent years investigating methods to restore lipase function, 
but these efforts have been hampered by the lack of a simple, reliable method to 
activate lipase molecules. While it was recognized that a increase inside the 
intestines of patients caused lipase inactivity, the precise effect on the lipase 
molecule was never characterized. [The petitioner's] discovery that lipase molecules 
close their active site lids in an acidic J guided a team of French experts to boost 
lipase activity under acidic conditions. As a direct result of [the petitioner's] 
findings, they were able to propose this original method for slowing the progression 
of 
Two of the new witnesses both emphasized potential applications of the petitioner's work to the 
treatment of but provided no specific identifying details and the rough descriptions provided do 
not match. Dr. referred to a "team of French experts," while Dr. attributed the 
same study to "a joint team of researchers from Spain and France." Neither witness identified the 
individual researchers or the institution(s) where they worked, and neither witness provided the title 
of any article reporting the research described. 
The petitioner has not submitted any article by researchers in both Spain and France. The petitioner 
had previously submitted excerpts an artide by researchers in and Paris, but those excerpts 
did not mention Instead, the article, 
indicated that ' 
and reported ' 
The article cited the petitioner's work as one of 13 articles reporting ' 
that nrovided " 
Given the lack of corroborating evidence, and inconsistencies between the two general descriptions 
of the research involved, the petitioner hat~ not shown that his work directly resulted in a new 
proposed method to slow the progression o · Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
ofSojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg' I Comm'r 1972). 
The petitioner stated: 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The RFE's assertion that "the record does not persuasively demonstrate that the 
beneficiary has been especially influential as a researcher in molecular biophysics" 
ignores the citations provided with the initial submission from research teams around 
the world. As evidenced by the articles included with the original submission, and by 
the expert testimonial letters enumerated above, these citations are not merely 
referencing his work, rather they demonstrate reliance on, and use of, his original 
technique. 
The 
record does not support the petitioner's reading of the citations. The French team's article, 
discussed above, cited two of the petitioner's articles in a collective citation with 11 other articles 
dated between 1994 and 2005. As another example, the review article ' 
which appeared in contains three citations 
to the petitioner's work, as follows: 
All of the citations are group citations, identifying the petitioner's work alongside other articles, 
many of them published before the petitioner's cited work. The article does not indicate that the 
petitioner's work is more significant than the c:ther cited articles or show that the petitioner's work, 
unlike that of the other cited authors, fcm1ed a foundation for the citing authors' research. The 
petitioner did not submit evidence to establish that nine independent citations over the course of 
eight years constitute a significantly high citation rate in the petitioner's specialty. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
The director denied the petition on December 28, 2011. The director acknowledged the intrinsic 
merit and national scope of the petitioner's occupation, but found "insufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that [the petitioner's] proposed employment would specifically benefit the national 
interest of the United States to a substantially greater degree than a similarly qualified U.S. worker." 
The director acknowledged the petitioner's submission of "several testimonial letters," and stated: 
"The majority of the letters appear to have very similar language attesting to [the petitioner's] 
expertise and contributions as a researcher." The director stated that the petitioner had made 
contributions to his field, but had not established its "major significance." The director also stated 
that the petitioner had documented "a vveak citation history." Concerning the petitioner's peer 
review work, the director stated: "the peer review and grant review [documents] were invitations and 
there is no evidence of [the petitioner's] actual participation." Observing that the editors of 
had extended an invitation to the petitioner or "one of [his] colleagues," the director found 
no evidence that the invitation rested on the petitioner's "exceptional work or reputation." The 
director concluded that the petitioner had established competence, but not impact, in his field. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "The denial disregards substantial evidence in the record of [the 
petitioner's] impact on his field of molecular biophysics, including testimonial evidence of experts 
directly addressing the question of impact raised by the Texas Service Center's Request for 
Evidence." As a representative example, the pe.:titioner quotes Dr. letter, indicating that the 
petitioner's "articles have been repeatedly used by researchers to inform their own original studies" 
and "as such [they] are responsible for advancing treatment on a wide variety of diseases." 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
cases). 
The BIA also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduc-tion of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." !d. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are n.::t without weight and have received consideration 
above. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter ofCaron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 
users is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is 
not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. See id. at 795; see 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). See also Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
The petitioner has relied on the witness letters not simply for expert opinions, but for claims of fact, 
such as the assertion that the petitioner's "articles have been repeatedly used by researchers." As 
discussed previously, Dr. reference to an unidentified "team of French experts" lacks detail 
and corroboration; there is also a lack of consistency, with Dr. attributing the same 
study to "a joint team of researchers from Spain and France." In the face of these inconsistencies 
and lack of detail, the absence of corrolxmJing evidence diminishes the weight of the reference 
letters. 
The petitioner does not address the director's finding regarding the "very similar language" in the 
witness letters. The similarly worded claims, in supposedly independent letters, raises questions 
about the true origin of those letters. Cf Mei Chai Ye v. US. Dept. of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 519 
(2d Cir. 2007) (concluding that an immigration judge may reasonably infer that when an asylum 
applicant submits strikingly similar affidavits, the applicant is the common source). 
The witness letters, taken alone, contain strong praise for the petitioner, and assertions that the 
petitioner has had a significant impact on work of other researchers. The remainder of the 
record, however, does not support key claims in those letters, and the director's decision raised 
questions about those letters which the petitioner has not answered on appeal. See Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. at 591. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record 
by independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. !d. at 591-92. 
The petitioner states that the director's decision "improperly changes the standard under which this 
petition was to be judged." Specifically, the NYSDOT standard requires only "significant impact," 
whereas the director required evidence that the petitioner's work has "major significance." The 
director's use of the phrase "major significance" does not invalidate the remainder ofthe decision, in 
which the director indicated that the petitioner had not met the NYSDOT standard. The petitioner, on 
appeal, does not contest significant elements of the director's decision with respect to the petitioner's 
citation history and his peer review invitations. The petitioner has not overcome the finding that the 
record lacks evidence of "significant impact." 
The petitioner has not established a past record of achievement at a level that would justify a waiver of 
the job offer requirement. The petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, but the national interest waiver contemplates that his influence be national in scope. NYSDOT 
at 217, n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the field of 
endeavor." Id at 218. See also id at 219, n.6 (the alien must have "a past history of demonstrable 
achievement with some degree of influence 0L. field as a whole."). 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national 
interest of the United States. 
We will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.