dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cancer Research

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof IlomelandSecurity
U.S.Citizenshipand1mmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.,N.w., MS 2090
washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: AUG 0 8 2012 OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasa Memberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
Degreeor anAlienof ExceptionalAbility PursuanttoSection203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents
related to this matter have beenreturned to the office that originally decided your case. Pleasebe advised
thatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith theinstructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a feeof $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled within
30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: TheDirector,NebraskaServiceCenter,deniedtheemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetition.
Thematteris now beforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) on appeal.The AAO will dismissthe
appeal.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationundersection203(b)(2)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct),8
U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2),asanalienof exceptionalabilityin thesciencesandasamemberof theprofessionsholding
anadvanceddegree.Thepetitionerseeksemploymentasa postdoctoralfellow at theVanAndel Research
Institute(VARI), GrandRapids,Michigan. Thepetitionerassertsthatanexemptionfrom therequirementof a
job offer, andthusof a laborcertification, is in thenationalinterestof theUnited States.The director foundthat
thepetitionerqualifiesforclassificationasamemberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree,butthatthe
petitionerhasnotestablishedthatanexemptionfromtherequirementof ajob offerwouldbein thenational
interestof theUnitedStates.
Onappeal,thepetitionersubmitsabrieffromcounsel.
Section203(b)of theActstates,in pertinentpart:
(2) AliensWhoAreMembersof theProfessionsHoldingAdvancedDegreesor Aliensof Exceptional
Ability.-
(A) In General.- Visasshallbemadeavailable. . . toqualifiedimmigrantswhoaremembersof
the professionsholding advanceddegreesor their equivalentor who becauseof their
exceptionalabilityin thesciences,arts,or business,will substantiallybenefitprospectivelythe
nationaleconomy,culturalor educationalinterests,orwelfareof theUnitedStates,andwhose
servicesin thesciences,arts,professions,or businessaresoughtby anemployerin theUnited
States.
(B)WaiverofJobOffer-
(i) . . . theAttorneyGeneralmay,whenthe AttorneyGeneraldeemsit to be in the
nationalinterest,waivetherequirementsof subparagraph(A) thatanalien'sservicesin
the sciences,arts, professions,or businessbe sought by an employer in the United
States.
Thedirectordid notdisputethatthepetitionerqualifiesasa memberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanced
degree(althoughtheAAO will revisitthisissue).Thedirectorbasedthedenialsolelyon a findingthatthe
petitionerhasnotestablishedthatawaiverof thejob offerrequirement,andthusa laborcertification,is in the
nationalinterest.
Neitherthestatutenorthepertinentregulationsdefinetheterm"nationalinterest."Additionallv.Coneressdid
notprovideaspecificdefinitionof "in thenationalinterest."TheCommitteeontheJudiciarymerelynotedin its
reportto the Senatethat the committeehad"focusedon nationalinterestby increasingthe numberand
proportionof visasfor immigrantswhowouldbenefittheUnitedStateseconomicallyandotherwise.. . ." S.
Rep.No.55,101stCong.,1stSess.,11(1989).
Page3
Supplementaryinformationto regulationsimplementingtheImmigrationAct of 1990,publishedat 56Fed.
Reg.60897,60900(November29,1991),states:
The Service [now U.S. Citizenshipand Immigration Services(USCIS)] believes it
appropriateto leavetheapplicationof this testasflexibleaspossible,althoughclearlyan
alien seekingto meetthe [nationalinterest]standardmustmakea showingsignificantly
abovethatnecessaryto provethe"prospectivenationalbenefit"[requiredof aliensseeking
to qualifyas"exceptional."]Theburdenwill restwith thealiento establishthatexemption
from,or waiverof, thejob offerwill bein thenationalinterest.Eachcaseis to bejudgedon
its own merits.
In reNewYorkStateDept.of Transportation(NYSDOT),22I&N Dec.215(Act.Assoc.Comm'r1998),hasset
forthseveralfactorswhichmustbeconsideredwhenevaluatingarequestforanationalinterestwaiver.First,the
petitionermustshowthatthe alienseeksemploymentin an areaof substantialintrinsicmerit. Next,the
petitionermustshowthattheproposedbenefitwill be nationalin scope.Finally,thepetitionerseekingthe
waivermustestablishthatthealienwill servethenationalinteresttoasubstantiallygreaterdegreethanwouldan
availableUnitedStatesworkerhavingthesameminimumqualifications.
Whilethenationalinterestwaiverhingesonprospectivenationalbenefit,thepetitionermustestablishthatthe
alien'spastrecordjustifiesprojectionsof futurebenefitto the nationalinterest.Thepetitioner'ssubjective
assurancethatthealienwill, in thefuture,servethenationalinterestcannotsufficeto establishprospective
nationalbenefit. Theintentionbehindtheterm"prospective"is to requirefuturecontributionsby thealien,
ratherthanto facilitatetheentryof analienwith nodemonstrablepriorachievements,andwhosebenefitto the
nationalinterestwould thusbeentirelyspeculative.
TheAAO alsonotesthattheUSCISregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(2)defines"exceptionalability" as"a
degreeof expertisesignificantlyabovethatordinarilyencountered"in a givenareaof endeavor.By statute,
aliensof exceptionalabilityaregenerallysubjecttothejob offer/laborcertificationrequirement;theyarenot
exemptbyvirtueof theirexceptionalability. Therefore,whetheragivenalienseeksclassificationasanalien
of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an advanceddegrec, that alien cannot
qualify for a waiver just by demonstratinga degreeof expertisesignificantlyabovethat ordinarily
encounteredin hisor herfieldof expertise.
Thepetitionerfiled theFormI-140petitiononJune23,2011.In anaccompanyingstatement,counselstated:
[The petitioner] is a Cancer ResearchScientist and is studying the causesand effective
treatmentsfor kidneycancer. More specifically,[the petitioner]is studyingantioxidant
therapyfor kidneycancerandthemechanismsthatgiveriseto sensitivityto theantioxidant
therapies.[Thepetitioner's]studiesfocusonthedevelopmentof anewfamilyof anti-cancer
drugsanddevelopingtheanimalmodelsfor theirtesting.
Thepetitionersubmittedbackgroundinformationabouthisemployerandhisresearchspecialty,alongwith
copiesof hispublishedworkandfourwitnessletters. whohas"known[thepetitioner]
since1989"and"attendedthe samehigh school"asthe petitioner,is now an assistantprofessorat the
Universityof Colorado,Denver. stated:
Page4
As a scientistworkingin thefieldsof systemandcomputationalbiology,I amawareof the
lackof talentedindividualswhopossessbothlife scienceandcomputerscienceskills. [The
petitioner]is oneof thefew scientiststhatI knowwho is well-versedin boththeseareas.
His vast knowledgein thesetwo importantfields hasenabledhim to developpowerful
algorithmswhichapplyacrossdisciplinaryscientificfacts[sic]. Onesuchexampleis in his
currentwork on papillaryrenalcell carcinoma.He developeda newalgorithmthat can
predicttranscriptionfactorsthatcontrola geneof interest.Thisnewalgorithmhasenabled
him to discoverderegulationof biochemicalpathwaysthat betterdescribethe clinical,
genetic,and morphologicalphenotypesthat is [sic] apparentin the aggressivetype 2
papillaryrenalcell carcinoma.This discoveryhasalsoexplainedwhy treatmentstrategy
basedon thecurrentparadigmon theparticularsubtypeof kidneycanceris failing to show
anypromismgresponse.Thisnewdiscoverycanpotentiallyleadto thedevelopmentof new
treatmentstrategiesfor this aggressivesubtypeof kidneycancer. [Thepetitioner]is also
workingon analgorithmthatwill enablethepredictionof changesin thegeneexpression
profilesuponswitchingageneonoroff. Thisalgorithmwill haveatremendousimpactboth
in theunderstandingof cancerbiologyaswell asfindingnewstrategiestocurecancer.
VARI ProfessorBinTeanTehstated:
I . . . set up the NCCS-VARITranslationalResearchLaboratoryat the NationalCancer
Centreof Singaporein 2007.. . .
Prior to joining my lab, [thepetitioner]hada distinguishedcareer.. . . I wasfortunateto
havemet[thepetitioner]in August2007,andpersuadedhim to becomethefirst research
fellow in the NCCS-VARI TranslationalResearchLaboratoryin November2007. [The
petitioner]playeda keyrolein settingupthislaboratorywhichcombinedresourcesin both
SingaporeandtheUnitedStatesto worktowardsthesamegoalof improvinghumanhealth..
. . [The petitioner]is currentlyconductingseveralof the mostimportantprojectsin my
laboratory,which will establishour leadingpositionin translationalresearchfor kidney
cancer.. . .
[Thepetitioner]is oneof thefewscientiststhatI knowwhoworkswell with bothclinicians
and scientists. This is evident in the findings [that] resultedfrom the work the petitioner]
completed through collaborating with one of the surgeons, . and research
fellow, wheretogethertheymanagedto identifya biologicalmarker
thatcanbe usedto differentiatethedeadlybile ductcancerfrom themorecommonliver
cancer. This biological markerfacilitateda more aggressivetreatmentregimeto be
administeredtopatientswith bileductcancer.. . .
. . . .Throughhis knowledgein biochemistryandunderstandingof computerprogramming,
hehasbeenableto formulaterevolutionaryhypotheses. . . aswell asplan[]andexecut[e]
thenecessarylaboratoryexperimentstotestthesehypotheses.
Page5
. . [The petitioner] works with the University of Cambridgein understandinga protein
knownashypoxiainduciblefactorwhich hasenabledus to look into differentialcontrols
exertedby this proteinin kidneycancercellsandin normalkidneycells. He utilizesthe
latestsequencingtechnology,which allowshim to look at the protein'sinteractionwith
DNA bothin tumorandin normalcells.
assistantprofessoratVARI, stated:
[Thepetitioner]useda computermodelingapproachto predictthata veryaggressiveform
of kidney cancerwas associatedwith a defect in the way the tumor cells were respondingto
cellularstress.[Thepetitioner]thenproceededto performlaboratorystudiesto provehis
computationalmodelwascorrect.Heis nowin theprocessof applyingthisnewknowledge
toidentifypotentialtreatmentsfor thisaggressivedisease.
of Weill CornellMedicalCollegeand
|_ .... ... .... _ _ .. ... stated:"I am not personallyacquaintedwith [the
petitioner];however,I amwell awareof hismajorcontributionsin thefield of moleculargeneticsin kidney
cancer." The curricula vitae of Prof. Teh and Prof showpastcollaborationsbetweenthe two
researchers.
Prof. describedthepetitioner'spastcareerandconcludedthatthepetitioner'swork "lays downthe
foundationfor thedevelopmentof targetedtreatmentstrategiesfor [a] subtypeof kidneycancer"knownas
type2 papillaryrenalcell carcinoma.Prof. assertedthatthepetitioner"is surelyoneof the most
accomplishedresearchersin his field." Therecorddoesnot showthatthis opinionextendsbeyondthose
whohavecollaboratedwith thepetitioneror hismentors.
Thedirectorissueda requestfor evidenceon September1, 2011,instructingthepetitionerto establishthe
impactof hiswork. Thedirectorspecificallyrequestedevidenceof independentcitationof thepetitioner's
publishedwork.
In responseto therequest,counselassertedthatthepetitioner's"researchhasbeencitednumeroustimesby
othercancerresearchersin theirpublishedarticles." Thepetitionersubmittedcopiesof sevencitingarticles
andevidenceof citationin a book. Oneof thearticles(exhibit2 in thepetitioner'sfiling) citedthearticle
only asoneof severalnamedsourcesfor cell cultures.
The petitionersubmitteda copy of the manuscriptof a not-yet-publishednew article, acceptedfor
publication in Cancer Cell. This evidence shows the petitioner's continued activity, but the article is not
evidenceof its own significance.Counselclaimed:"CancerCell is the mostinfluentialpublicationfor
original cancerresearchpublications. Havingan article selectedfor publicationin this journal is the
equivalentof beingnominatedfor anAcademyAward." Counselofferedno supportfor this claim,or for
similarclaimsaboutthesignificanceof a posterpresentationthatthepetitionermadeat a 2011conference,
andaninvitationforthepetitionertoreviewamanuscriptsubmittedforpublicationin CellularOncology.
The AAO notesthat counselbasesthe claim aboutthe influenceof CancerCell on thejournal's impact
factor. Impactfactoris a functionof theaveragecitationrateof articlesin a givenjournal. By pointingto
Page6
theimpactfactorasan indicatorof thejournal'ssignificance,counselhasacknowledgedthatcitationrates
area gaugeof ajournal'sinfluence.Thepetitionerdid notestablish,however,thatthecitationratesof his
ownarticlesareparticularlyhighwithin hisfield.
CounselacknowledgedthatCancerCell acceptedthearticle"on August30,2011,"morethantwo months
afterthepetition'sJune23,2011filing date.Therefore,evenif theacceptanceof this articlewereevidence
of eligibility (whichthepetitionerhasnotshown),it wouldnotretroactivelyshoweligibility asof thefiling
date. An applicantor petitionermustestablishthatheor sheis eligiblefor therequestedbenefitatthetime
of filing thebenefitrequest.8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(1).USCIScannotproperlyapprovethepetitionata future
dateafterthepetitioneror beneficiarybecomeseligibleunderanewsetof facts.SeeMatterofKatigbak,14
I&N Dec.45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971).
On October20, 2011, the director deniedthe petition. The directoracknowledgedthe petitioner's
submissionof witnessletters and copiesof his publishedwork, but found that the record lacked
corroborationfor witnesses'claimsaboutthe significanceof the petitioner'sfindings. Thedirectoralso
acknowledgedthepetitioner'sparticipationin peerreviewandprofessionalconferences,butdeterminedthat
thepetitionerhadnotestablishedthattheseactivitiessetthepetitionerapartfromotheractiveprofessionals
in his field. ThedirectoralsonotedthatCancerCell acceptedthepetitioner'sarticleafterthefiling date.
Thedirectorconcludedthatthepetitionerhadnotshowna levelof impactandinfluencethatwouldwarrant
thespecialbenefitof thenationalinterestwaiver.
Onappeal,counsel's"Statementof Facts"includestheassertionthatthepetitioner"hasbeenrecommended
withoutqualificationby severalof thetopcancerresearchersin theUnitedStates."Therecordshowsthat
the four witnessesconsistof two of the petitioner'scollaborators/superiorsat VARI; oneof
collaborators;andsomeonewho went to high schoolwith thepetitioner. It is not a matterof undisputedor
self-evident fact that these individuals also happen to be among "the top cancer researchdoctors in the
UnitedStates."
TheBoardof ImmigrationAppeals(BIA) hasheldthattestimonyshouldnotbedisregardedsimplybecause
it is "self-serving."See,e.g.,Matterof S-A-,22I&N Dec.1328,1332(BIA 2000)(citingcases).TheBIA
alsoheld,however:"We not only encourage,butrequiretheintroductionof corroborativetestimonialand
documentaryevidence,whereavailable."Id. If testimonialevidencelacksspecificity,detail,or credibility,
thereisagreaterneedfor thepetitionertosubmitcorroborativeevidence.Matterof Y-B-,21I&N Dec.11%
(BIA 1998).
Theopinionsof expertsin thefield arenotwithoutweightandhavereceivedconsiderationabove.USCIS
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statementssubmitted as expert testimony. SeeMatter of
CaronInternational,19l&N Dec.791,795(Comm'r1988).However,USCISis ultimatelyresponsiblefor
makingthefinal determinationregardinganalien'seligibility for thebenefitsought.Id. Thesubmissionof
lettersfromexpertssupportingthepetitionis notpresumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmay,asabove,
evaluatethecontentof thoselettersasto whethertheysupportthealien'seligibility. USCISmayevengive
lessweight to an opinionthat is not corroborated,in accordwith otherinformationor is m any way
questionable.Seeid. at 795;seealsoMatterof V-K-,24 I&N Dec.500,502n.2(BIA 2008)(notingthat
expertopiniontestimonydoesnotpurportto beevidenceasto "fact"). SeealsoMatterof Soffici,22 I&N
Page7
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998)(citing Matter of TreasureCraft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l
Comm'r1972)).
In this instance,thewitnesseshaveprovidedinformationaboutthepetitioner'sactivitiesin the laboratory.
Therecord,however,containsnoobjectiveconfirmationthatthepetitioner'swork hashadmoreimpactor
influencethanthatof othersin hisfield.
Counselmaintainsthatthepetitionerhassubmitted"overwhelmingdocumentaryevidence"of eligibility for
thewaiver. Thedocumentaryevidenceshowsthatthepetitioneris a cancerresearcher,which,by itself,is
notpresumptiveevidenceof eligibilityfor thewaiver. Theinformationabouttheclaimedsignificanceof his
workall comesfromsourcesnomorethantwodegreesremovedfromthepetitionerhimself,andthereis no
evidencethattheclaimsof thesewitnessesrepresentanysortof broaderconsensuswithin thefield.
Counselproteststhat the director concluded"without any explanation[that] eight citations to [the
petitioner's]work wasnot enough." Thepetitionersubmittednothingto showthat eight citationsrepresent
unusuallyheavyrelianceonhiswork.
Counselalsorepeatstheassertionthat"[h]avinganarticleselectedfor publicationin [CancerCell] is the
equivalentof beingnominatedfor anAcademyAwardin theentertainmentindustry. Acknowledgementby
CancerCell is objectivelyverifiableevidencethat[thepetitioner]hasandwill contributeto the national
interestto a substantiallygreaterdegreethanthe majorityof his peers." Theunsupportedassertionsof
counseldonotconstituteevidence.SeeMatterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534n.2(BIA 1988);Marwrof
Laureano,19I&N Dec.1,3 n.2(BIA 1983);Matterof Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).
Counseldoesnotgivethisunsupportedclaimgreaterweightsimplybyrepeatingit.
Counselmaintainsthat,althoughCancerCell acceptedthe petitioner'sarticleafterthe filing date,"the
manuscriptitself waswrittenandsubmittedfor publicationprior to thefiling of this application.. . . The
substantivework thatwentintotheresearchandwriting of thatmanuscript"occurredearlier,andtherefore
"mustbeconsidered."Thereis somemeritto theobservationthatthepetitioner'swork tookplacepriorto
thefiling date,buttherecordcontainsnoobjectiveevidencethatthefindingsreportedin themanuscriptare
of a caliberthat demonstrateseligibility for thewaiver. Furthermore,an as-yet-unpublishedmanuscript
generallyhashadmuchlessof anopportunitytoinfluenceothersin thefield. Fromtimetotime,particularly
significantworksmaygarnersignificantattentionpriorto publication,butthepetitionerhasnotshownsuch
to be the casehere. USCIS cannot properly approvea national interest waiver on the basisof unpublished
work,relyingsolelyontheassurancethatthework,oncepublished,will eventuallyhaveasignificantimpact
onthepetitioner'sfield.
Withrespectto thepetitioner'speerreviewwork,counselstates:
[T]heDirectorconcludedthat[thepetitioner]did notestablishthathis "participationin the
peer-reviewprocesssets[him] apartfromothersperformingsuchreviews." Thatis notthe
standard. [The petitioner]is not requiredto distinguishhis work from otherswho are
selectedto servein thepeer-reviewprocess.Heis only requiredto distinguishhimselffrom
otherminimallyqualifiedU.S.workers.Thefactthathewasaskedby prestigiousjournals
Page8
to serveasajudgeof othersworkis itselfproofthathehasdistinguishedhimselfin thefield
fromotherminimallyqualifiedU.S.workers.
Thepetitionerhasnotshownthatparticipationin peerreviewelevatesthepetitioneraboveothersin hisfield.
The recordcontainsno objectiveevidenceto showhow editorsselectpeerreviewersin the petitioner's
specialty. Counselmakesmuchof the appearanceof the word "expert"in the invitationletter,but the
wordingchoicein a communicationspecificallyintendedto encouragethepetitioner'sparticipationin the
peerreviewprocessis notstrongevidenceof hisoverallstandingin thefield.
Furthermore,thepetitionerdoesnot necessarilyqualifyfor thewaiversimplyby "distinguish[ing]himself
from other minimally qualified U.S. workers." Sucha standardwould meanthat the job offer/labor
certificationrequirementappliesonlyto minimallyqualifiedalienworkers,becauseanyalienworkerwhose
qualificationsexceededtheminimumwouldbedistinguishedfromminimallyqualifiedU.S.workers.The
standard,asstatedin NYSDOT,is thatthe petitioner"mustestablishthatthe alienwill servethenational
interestto a substantiallygreaterdegreethanwould an availableU.S.workerhavingthesameminimum
qualifications."Id. at218.
For thereasonsdiscussedabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthata waiverof thestatutoryjob offer
requirementwould be in the nationalinterest. TheAAO will thereforedismissthe appeal. In addition,
reviewof therecordrevealsanotherissueof concern,regardingtheunderlyingimmigrantclassificationthat
thepetitionerseeks.
TheAAO mayidentifyadditionalgroundsfor denialbeyondwhattheServiceCenteridentifiedin theinitial
decision.SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc.v. UnitedStates,229F.Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),aff'd,
345F.3d683(9thCir.2003);seealsoSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3d143,145(3dCir.2004)(notingthattheAAO
conductsappellatereviewonadenovobasis).
In theinitial submission,counselstatedthatthepetitionerseeksclassification"asanalienwith anadvanced
degree/exceptionalability." Counselhasthusconflatedtwo parallelbutdistinctimmigrantclassifications.
memberof theprofessionsholding anadvanceddegreeandalien of exceptionalability in thesciences,artsor
business.
Thedirector,in thedenialnotice,disregardedthepetitioner'sclaimof exceptionalability,andconcludedthat
the beneficiary qualifies for classification asa memberof the professionsholding an advanceddegree. The
record,however,doesnot containsufficient evidenceto justify a favorablefinding regardingeither
classification.
TheUSCISregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(k)(2)includesthefollowingrelevantdefinitions:
Advanceddegreemeansany UnitedStatesacademicor professionaldegreeor a foreign
equivalentdegreeabovethatof baccalaureate.A UnitedStatesbaccalaureatedegreeor a
foreignequivalentdegreefollowedby at leastfive yearsof progressiveexperiencein the
specialtyshallbe consideredthe equivalentof a master'sdegree. If a doctoraldegreeis
customarilyrequiredby the specialty,thealienmusthavea UnitedStatesdoctorateor a
foreignequivalentdegree.
Page9
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise
significantly abovethat ordinarily encounteredin the sciences,arts,or business.
The USCISregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(3)setsforth the evidentiaryrequirementsfor the two
classifications:
(i) To showthatthealienis aprofessionalholdinganadvanceddegree,thepetitionmust
beaccompaniedby:
(A) An official academicrecordshowingthat the alien hasan United States
advanceddegreeoraforeignequivalentdegree;or
(B) An official academic record showing that the alien has a United States
baccalaureatedegreeor a foreignequivalentdegree,andevidencein the form of
lettersfrom currentor formeremployer(s)showingthatthealienhasat leastfive
yearsof progressivepost-baccalaureateexperiencein thespecialty.
(ii) To show that the alien is an alien of exceptionalability in the sciences,arts,or
business,thepetitionmustbeaccompaniedbyatleastthreeof thefollowing:
(A) An official academicrecordshowingthat the alien hasa degree,diploma,
certificate,or similarawardfromacollege,university,school,or otherinstitutionof
learningrelatingtotheareaof exceptionalability;
(B) Evidencein theformof letter(s)fromcurrentor formeremployer(s)showing
that thealien hasat leastten yearsof full-time experiencein theoccupationfor
whichheorsheis beingsought;
(C) A licenseto practicetheprofessionor certificationfor a particularprofession
oroccupation;
(D) Evidencethatthe alienhascommandeda salary,or otherremunerationfor
services,which demonstratesexceptionalability;
(E) Evidenceof membershipin professionalassociations;or
(F) Evidenceof recognitionfor achievementsandsignificantcontributionsto the
industry or field by peers,governmentalentities,or professionalor business
orgamzations.
TheAAO doesnotdisputethatthepetitioner'soccupationmeetstheregulatorydefinitionof aprofessionat8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(2).Therecord,however,containsnoofficial academicrecordshowingthatthealienhasa
UnitedStatesbachelor'sdegreeoradvanceddegreeoraforeignequivalentdegree.
Page10
Thepetitioner'sinitial submissionincludedEnglish-languagedocumentsindicatingthatthe Universityof
Malayaawardedthepetitionera Bachelorof Sciencedegreein Biochemistryon October9, 2001,anda
Doctorof Philosophydegreeon August9, 2005. Theannotation"CertifiedTranslation"appearson both
documents.
Any documentcontainingforeignlanguagesubmittedto USCISshallbe accompaniedby a full English
languagetranslation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate,and by the translator's
certificationthat heor sheis competentto translatefrom the foreignlanguageinto English. 8 C.F.R.§
103.2(b)(3). Simplywriting "CertifiedTranslation"on an English-languageversionof an unsubmitted
foreign-languagedocumentdoesnot meetthis requirement. The petitioner hasfailed, therefore,to show that
the"CertifiedTranslation"documentsareofficialacademicrecords.
The petitioneralso submittedan English-languageacademictranscriptfrom the Universityof Malaya,
showinghisundergraduatecourseworkfrom 1998to 2001. Thetranscriptappearsto amountto anofficial
academicrecord,buthedid notsubmitcomparablerecordsof hisclaimeddoctorate.Also,thepetitionerdid
notsubmitanevaluationshowingthathisfirst degreeis equivalentto a UnitedStatesbaccalaureatedegrec,
or thathisseconddegreeisequivalenttoaUnitedStatesdoctorate.
The AAO acknowledgesthat the petitioner'sappointmentto a postdoctoralpositionimpliesthat VARI
considersthe petitionerto hold a doctorate.Nevertheless,the regulationsdescribethe specificevidence
necessaryto establishanadvanceddegree,andevidenceof employmentin apostdoctoralpositiondoesnot
meetthat description.
The petitionerhas not submittedan official academicrecordshowingthat he holds a foreign degree
equivalentto a United Statesadvanceddegree,or equivalentto a United Statesbaccalaureatedegree
followedby five yearsof progressiveexperience.Therefore,thepetitionerhasnotmetthebasicregulatory
requirementsat8 C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(i).
The AAO now turns to counsel'sclaim that the petitionerqualifiesfor classificationas an alien of
exceptionalability in the sciences.The USCISregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)statesthat, to show
that the alien is an alien of exceptionalability in the sciences,arts,or business,the petition must be
accompaniedby atleastthreeof thefollowing:
(A) An official academicrecord showing that the alien hasa degree,diploma, certificate, or
similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to
theareaof exceptionalability;
(B) Evidencein theformof letter(s)fromcurrentor formeremployer(s)showingthatthe
alienhasat leasttenyearsof full-timeexperiencein theoccupationfor whichheor sheis
beingsought;
(C) A licenseto practicethe professionor certificationfor a particularprofessionor
occupation;
Page11
(D) Evidencethatthealienhascommandeda salary,or otherremunerationfor services,
whichdemonstratesexceptionalability;
(E) Evidenceof membershipin professionalassociations;or
(F) Evidenceof recognitionfor achievementsandsignificantcontributionsto theindustry
or field bypeers,governmentalentities,orprofessionalor businessorganizations.
In additionto satisfyingat leastthreeof theabovestandards,the petitioner'sevidencemustshowthatthe
petitionermeetstheregulatorydefinitionof exceptionalability. Theregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(k)(2)defines
"exceptionalability"as"a degreeof expertisesignificantlyabovethatordinarilyencountered"in agivenareaof
endeavor.
Wherethepetitionerfailsto submittherequisiteevidence,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerfailedto
satisfytheregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.SeeKazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir.
2010)(adecisionpertainingto section203(b)(1)(A)of theAct butcontaininglegalreasoningpertinentto the
classification in the current matter before the AAO). If the petitioner has submitted the requisiteevidence,
USCISmakesa final meritsdeterminationasto whetherthe evidencedemonstrates"a degreeof expertise
significantlyabovethatordinarilyencountered."Id. at 1121,1122,aff'd Rifal v. USCIS,- F.3d-, 2012WL
2130884(C.A.9(Wash.)).
The AAO now turns to the petitioner'sevidencerelating to the six regulatorycriteria at 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(k)(3)(ii).Counselhasclaimedthatthepetitionermeetsfourof thecriteria:
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or
similar awardfrom a college,university,school,or other institutionof learningrelating to
theareaofexceptionalability. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)
Thepetitionermeetstheplain wordingof this regulatorystandard,havingsubmittedan official academic
record from the University of Malaya. The equivalency of the degree is an issue for the final merits
determination,as is the questionof how this degreedemonstratesa degreeof expertiseabovethat ordinarily
encounteredin the petitioner's field. If a particular academicdegreeis ordinarily encounteredin a given
occupation, then to hold such a degreedoes not demonstratea degreeof expertisesignificantly above that
ordinarily encounteredin thatoccupation.
Evidence in theform of letter(s)from current or former employer(s)showing that the alien
hasat leasttenyearsoffidl-timeexperiencein theoccupationfor whichheor sheis being
sought.8 C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)
Counselstatedthatthepetitionermeetsthis standardbecausehe"hasbeenconductingcancerresearchin
differentlaboratoriessince1999." Thepetitioner,however,did not submitlettersfrom currentor former
employersestablishingthat experience.Therefore,the petitionerhasnot met the plain wordingof the
regulation.
Evidenceofmembershipinprofessionalassociations.8 C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E)
Page12
Counselstatesthat the petitioner"is a memberof a relevantprofessionalassociation:The American
Associate[sic] for CancerResearch."Theplainwordingof theregulationrefersto "associations,"rather
thanto asingle"association"orto "association(s)"whichmaybesingularorplural.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E)requiresevidenceof membershipin
professional"associations"in theplural. Significantly,notall of thecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)are
wordedin theplural. Whena regulatorycriterionwishesto includethesingularwithin theplural,it expressly
doessoaswhenit statesat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)thatevidenceof experiencemustbein theformof
"letter(s)." Thus,theAAO caninferthatthepluralin the remainingregulatorycriteriahasmeaning.In a
differentcontext,federalcourtshaveupheldUSClS'sabilityto interpretsignificancefromwhetherthesingular
or plural is usedin a regulation)
Evenmorefundamentally,counsel'saccompanyingexhibitlist doesnotshowanyevidenceof thisclaimed
membership,andtheAAO canfind no suchevidencein therecord. TheAAO finds, therefore,thatthe
petitionerhasnotsubmittedevidenceof membershipin evenoneprofessionalassociation.Thepetitioner
hasnotsatisfiedthiscriterion.
Evidenceof recognitionfor achievementsandsignificantcontributionsto the industryor
field bypeers,governmentalentities,orprofessionalor businessorganizations.8 C.F.R.§
204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F)
Awardcertificatesin therecordappeartosatisfytheplainwordingof thiscriterion.
The AAO alsofinds that,evenunderthe two-partKazarian test,the petitionerhasmet only two of the six
regulatorystandards.Specifically,thepetitionerhassubmittedanofficial academicrecordof a degree(8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A))andevidenceof recognitionfor achievementsor contributionsto theindustryor
field (8 C.F.R. § 204.S(k)(3)(ii)(F)). For reasonsalreadyexplained,the petitioner'sevidenceof past
employment(8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B))and membershipin professionalassociations(8 C.F.R.§
204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E))isdeficientanddoesnotmeettheregulatorythreshold.
Hadthepetitionersubmittedtherequiredevidenceunderatleastthreeevidentiarycategories,inaccordancewith
theKazarianopinion,thenextstepwouldbeafinalmeritsdeterminationthatconsidersall of theevidencein the
context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated"a degree of expertise significantly above that
ordinarilyencountered"in hisfield. 8C.F.R.§204.5(k)(2);seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat1119-20.Whilethe
AAO concludesthat the evidencedoesnot demonstratethe requireddegreeof expertise,the AAO neednot
explain that conclusionin a final merits determination.2Rather,the properconclusionis that the petitionerhas
SeeMaramjayav. USCIS,Civ.Act. No.06-2158(RCL)at 12(D.C.Cir. March26,2008);Snapnames.com
Inc. v. Chertoff,2006WL 3491005at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006)(upholdingan interpretationthat the
regulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreignequivalentdegreeat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(l)(2)
requiresasingledegreeratherthanacombinationof academiccredentials).
2 In any futureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdiction,underits establishedde novoauthority,to
conduct a final merits determinationas the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. §
103.5(a)(1)(ii).Seealsosection103(a)(1)of theAct; section204(b)of theAct; DHS DelegationNumber
0150.1(effectiveMarch 1, 2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1 (2003);8 C.F.R.§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003);Matter of
Page13
failedtosatisfytheregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id. at 1122.For thereasonsdiscussed
above,theAAO affirmsthedirector'sfindingthatthepetitionerhasfailedto submitsufficientevidenceto
establishexceptionalability in thesciences.
The AAO, in this proceeding,has not definitively found that the petitionercannotqualify for the
classificationhe seeks. The AAO hasmerelyfound that thepetitionerhasnot submittedthe evidence
necessaryto supporta findingof eligibility for thatclassification.Forthisadditionalreason,USCIScannot
properlyapprovethepetitionandtheAAO mustdismisstheappeal.
TheAAO will dismisstheappealfor theabovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredasan independentand
alternativebasisfor denial.In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibilityfor thebenefitsought
remainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotmetthat
burden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.
Aurelio,19I&N Dec.458,460(BIA 1987)(holdingthatlegacyINS,nowUSCIS,is thesoleauthoritywith
thejurisdictiontodecidevisapetitions).