dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cardiology

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and ImmigratiOn
Services
DATE: AUG 0 9 2012OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMemberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
Degreeor anAlienof ExceptionalAbility Pursuantto Section203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvised
thatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional
information that you wish to have considered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopenin
accordancewith the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The
specific requirementsfor filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. 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 nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) on appeal.TheAAO will dismissthe
appeal
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationundersection203(b)(2)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8
U.S.C.§ l l53(b)(2),asamemberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree.Thepetitioneris aphysician
specializingin cardiology,andisaninterventionalfellowatDetroitMedicalCenter,affiliatedwithWayneState
University(WSU). Thepetitionerassertsthatanexemptionfromtherequirementof ajob offer,andthusof a
laborcertification,is in thenationalinterestof theUnitedStates.Thedirectorfoundthatthepetitionerqualifies
for classificationasa memberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree,butthatthepetitionerhasnot
establishedthatanexemptionfromtherequirementof ajob offerwouldbein thenationalinterestof theUnited
States.
Onappeal,thepetitionersubmitsastatementfromcounsel.
Section203(b)oftheActstates,inpertinentpart:
(2) AliensWhoAreMembersof theProfessionsHoldingAdvancedDegreesor Aliensof Exceptional
Ability.-
(A) In General.- Visasshallbemadeavailable. . .toqualifiedimmigrantswhoaremembersof
the professionsholding advanceddegreesor their equivalentor who becauseof their
exceptionalabilityin thesciences,arts,orbusiness,will substantiallybenefitprospectivelythe
nationaleconomy,culturalor educationalinterests,orwelfareof theUnitedStates,andwhose
servicesin thesciences,ans,professions,orbusinessaresoughtby anemployerin theUnited
States.
(B)WaiverofJobOffer-
(i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in the
national interest, waive the requirementsof subparagraph(A) that an alien's servicesin
the sciences,arts, professions,or businessbe sought by an employer in the United
States.
Thedirectordid notdisputethatthepetitionerqualifiesasa memberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanced
degree.Thesoleissuein contentionis whetherthepetitionerhasestablishedthata waiverof thejob offer
requirement,andthusalaborcertification,isin thenationalinterest.
Neitherthestatutenorthepertinentregulationsdefmetheterm"nationalinterest."Additionally,Congressdid
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)] believesit
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 ownmerits.
In re NewYorkStateDept.of Transportation,22 I&N Dec.215(Act. Assoc.Comm'r 1998),hassetforth
severalfactorswhichmustbeconsideredwhenevaluatinga requestfor a nationalinterestwaiver. First,the
petitionermustshowthatthe alienseeksemploymentin an areaof substantialintrinsicmerit. Next,the
petitionermustshowthattheproposedbenefitwill benationalin scope.Finally,thepetitionerseekingthe
waivermustestablishthatthealienwill servethenationalinteresttoasubstantiallygreaterdegreethanwouldan
availableUnitedStatesworkerhavingthesameminimumqualifications.
Whilethenationalinterestwaiverhingesonprospectivenationalbenefit,thepetitionermustestablishthatthe
alien'spastrecordjustifiesprojectionsof futurebenefitto thenationalinterest.Thepetitioner'ssubjective
assurancethatthealienwill, in the future,servethenationalinterestcannotsufficeto establishprospective
nationalbenefit. Theintentionbehindtheterm"prospective"is to requirefuturecontributionsby thealien,
ratherthanto facilitatetheentryof analienwithnodemonstrablepriorachievements,andwhosebenefittothe
nationalinterestwouldthusbeentirelyspeculative.
TheAAO alsonotesthattheUSCISregulationat 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(2)defines"exceptionalability" as"a
degreeof expertisesignificantlyabovethatordinarilyencountered"in a givenareaof endeavor.By statute,
aliensof exceptionalabilityaregenerallysubjectto thejob offer/laborcertificationrequirement;theyarenot
exemptby virtue of their exceptionalability. Therefore,whether a given alien seeksclassification asan 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.
ThepetitionerfiledtheFormI-140petitiononMay 17,2011. In anintroductorystatement,counselstated
thatthepetitioner'soccupation,cardiology,is plainlyof substantialintrinsicmerit,andthatthepetitioner's
workhasnationalscopein partbecausehehasdisseminatedhisworkthroughpublicationandpresentation.
Thedirectordidnotcontesteitherof thesepoints,andtheyrequirenofurtherdiscussionhere.
Counseldid not claim that the petitioner'sdaily dutiesincludedmedicalor scientificresearch.Rather,
counselstatedthatthepetitioner's"work hasbeenpublishedin majormedicaljournals,a rareachievement
forapureclinician."
Counselcontendedthat"laborcertificationisinappropriate"in thisinstance,because:
Page4
An employerwishing to sponsor[the petitioner]throughlabor certificationwould be
requiredto articulatetheminimumrequirementsfor theposition.. . . [Thepetitioner]is not
soughtafterforhisminimumqualificationsandthereareminimallyqualifiedapplicantswho
canperfonnthe minimaldutiesof theposition. A hospitalwould want [the petitioner]
becausehis reputationfor high successrateswill attractmorepatients,will improvethe
institution'smortalityandmorbiditystatistics,andwill enablethe institutionto grow in
nationalrank. Thesearenot qualitiesfoundin . . . minimallyqualifiedexperts,but the
qualificationsof anextraordinaryexpert.
A givenhospital'sdesire"to growin nationalrank"relativeto otherUnitedStateshospitalsis notanational
interestissue.Counseldoesnotexplainwhy it wouldbein thenationalinterestfor DetroitMedicalCenter
to outrank,for example,Brighamand Women'sHospital,ratherthanthe otherway around. Improved
patientoutcomeswouldunquestionablybein theinterestof thepatientsconcerned,andwouldenhancethe
reputationof thehospital,but this benefitis localratherthannationalin scope,limitedby thenumberof
patientsthatthepetitionercaneffectivelytreat.
Counseladdedthat,shouldthepetitionerseekto split his servicesbetweenemployers,hewouldhaveno
singlefull-timeemployerto seeklaborcertificationon his behalf. Therecorddoesnot indicatethatthe
petitionerhaseverworkedundersuchcircumstancesin theUnitedStates,showingthathehasbeenable,at
leastfor the time being,to work full-time for a singleemployer. The AAO notesthat an alien who
immigratesthroughlaborcertificationis notpermanentlyboundto thesponsoringemployerfor theduration
of hisorhercareer.After adjustmentof status,analienphysicianmayworkfor multipleemployerswith or
withouta nationalinterestwaiver. Counselhasnot shownthat it is a matterof nationalinterestfor the
petitionerto splithisemploymentassoonaspossible,ratherthancontinueworkingfor oneemployer,ashe
has done, for the length of time it would take to obtain labor certification and adjust to lawful permanent
resident status. The petitioner's hypothetical preferencesin this regard do not support the conclusion that
"laborcertificationis inappropriate."Furthermore,theassertionthatthepetitionermustbefreeto workfor
asmanyinstitutionsashewishescontradictstheclaimthatit is in thenationalinterestfor himto remainat
DetroitMedicalCenterandtherebyenhanceitsreputation.
Counsel claimed that the petitioner "is heralded as an extraordinary clinician in his field," and that his
"higher successrates and . . . reputation as a leading expert in myocardial injury in thrombotic
thrombocytopenic purpura . . . makes him a valuable assetto any institution fortunate enough to
retain his services" (counsel's emphasis). Counsel assertsthat "numerous independentletters of support"
establishthatthepetitionerhasearned"sustainednationalacclaim."
Theunsupportedassertionsof counseldonotconstituteevidence.SeeMatterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,
534n.2(BIA 1988);MatterofLaureano,19I&N Dec.1,3n.2(BIA 1983);MatterofRamire:-Sanchez,17I&N
Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).Therefore,it is necessaryto examinetheevidenceof record,to seehowwell it
supportscounsel'sclaims.
Withrespectto counsel'sclaimof "numerousindependentlettersof support,"the"SupportLetters"sectionof
theinitialsubmissionincludedthreewitnessletters,all datedJanuaryorFebruary2010,morethanayearbefore
the May 2011filing date. All threewitnessesattendedPontificiaUniversidadCatolicaMadrey Maestra
(PUCMM)in theDominicanRepublic,wherethepetitionereamedhismedicaldegreebetween1995and2001.
Page5
All threewitnessesalsotrainedat WSU,two of themat thesametime asthepetitioner.Thosesametwo
witnessesclaimednotrainingor expertisein cardiology.
nowinfectiousdiseaseattendingphysicianandclinicianeducatoratYaleUniversity
SchoolofMedicine,graduatedfromPUCMMin2000,theyearbeforethepetitioner,andservedasaninternand
residentatWSUfrom2003to 2007.ThepetitionertrainedatWSUfromJuly2004toJune2007.Theletterhe
signedincludedanexampleofthepetitioner'sclinicalwork,whichbegan:"Whileworkingatthe[insertnameof
hospital].. . ." Thebracketedphrase"[insertnameof hospital]"raisesseriousquestionsabouttheauthorshipand
originof theletter,becausewhoeverwrotetheletterclearlydid notknowwheretheincidentoccurred.
signedtheletterwithoutremovingthisphrase,whichraisesthequestionof howcarefullyheactually
readit. This significantissuecastsdoubton theletter'scredibility andevidentiaryweight.
Doubtcastonanyaspectof thepetitioner'sproofmayleadto areevaluationof thereliabilityandsufficiency
of theremainingevidenceofferedin supportof thevisapetition.MatterofHo, 19I&N Dec.582,591(BIA
1988).Therefore,seriousquestionsabouttheoriginof anywitnessletterraisedoubtsaboutall of them.
, nowamedicalinstructoratDukeUniversity,graduatedfromPUCMMin 1999andwasa
chiefmedicalresidentatWSUin 2006.Despitecounsel'sclaimthatthelettersare"independent,"
heacknowledged"collaborationwith [the etition in thepast." Like claimedno
trainingor experiencein cardiology. statedthatthe petitioner's"researchat the LomaLinda
UniversityMedicalCenter(LLUMC) will continueto improvethe medicalcommunity'sunderstandingof
variouscardiologyandhematologyconditionsaffectingAmericans." continued:"[thepetitioner]is
oneof a selectgroupof physician-scientistswhopracticesmedicineandconductsresearch,therebyachievinga
titlebestowedupononlythebestin thefield." Bythetimethepetitionerfiledthepetition,thepetitionerhadleft
LLUMC to become,in counsel'swords,"a pureclinician"atDetroitMedicalCenter.Therecordcontainsno
evidenceto supporttheclaimthat"onlythebestin thefield"conductresearchandpracticeclinicalmedicineat
thesametime. Theavailableevidenceappearsto indicatethatsuchresearchis a routineelementof advanced
medicaltraining. alsomadetheequallyunsupportedclaimthat"[o]nlytheforemostauthoritiesin
anygivenfieldareaskedtoactasexternalreviewersforthemajorjournals."
associateprofessorat theUniversity of Alabamaat Birmingham,is somewhatolderthanthe
otherwitnesses,havinggraduatedfromPUCMMin 1992andtrainedat WSU from 1995to 1998. is
theonly initial witnessto claim boardcertification in cardiology. statedthatthepetitioner's"research
contributionsto the field of cardiovascularmedicinehave been nothing short of extraordinary,"and that his
"work will continueto advancethe field of cardiovascularmedicine." claimedthatoneof the
petitioner'sresearchprojects"changedthe waymanyechocardiograminterpretersat tertiarycardiaccenters
throughoutthe U.S. evaluatecardiacultrasoundsin hearttransplantrecipients." If this is true,thenthe
petitioner'sworkhashadasignificantnationalimpact,buttherecordcontainsnoprimaryevidenceto support
thisvaguely-wordedclaim.
TheBoardof ImmigrationAppeals(BIA) hasheldthattestimonyshouldnotbedisregardedsimplybecause
it is "self-serving."See,e.g.,MatterofS-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,
Page6
thereis agreaterneedfor thepetitionerto submitcorroborativeevidence.Matterof Y-B-,21I&N Dec.1136
(BIA 1998).
Theopinionsof expertsin thefield arenotwithoutweightandhavereceivedconsiderationabove.USCIS
may,in its discretion,useasadvisoryopinionsstatementssubmittedasexperttestimony.SeeMatter of
CaronInternational,19I&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 in any way
questionable.Seeid. at 795;seealsoMatterof V-K-,24 I&N Dec.500,502n.2(BIA 2008)(notingthat
expertopiniontestimonydoesnotpurportto beevidenceasto "fact"). SeealsoMatterofSoffici, 22 I&N
Dec. 158,165(Comm'r 1998)(citing Matter of TreasureCraft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190(Reg'l
Comm'r1972)).
Thelettersconsideredabovecontainwhatappearto behighly exaggeratedclaimsabout,for instance,the
rarityandsignificanceof performingresearchwhilealsopracticingmedicine.Unsupportedclaimsof factdo
not take on greater weight simply becausethey originate from a witness rather than from the petitioner
himself.
ThepetitionersubmittedaprintoutfromGoogleScholar(http://scholar.google.com),showingsix independent
citationsof oneof thepetitioner'sarticles.(Theprintoutshowssevenitems,buttwo of themarethesame
article,listedtwice.)
Elsewherein therecord,thepetitionersubmittedthreeletters(alsodatingfromearly2010)fromindividuals
involvedin thepetitioner'straining. is an at LomaLindaUniversity
Schoolof Medicineandchiefof theCardiacCatheterizationLaboratoryat
wherethepetitionerpreviouslyservedaschiefcardiologyfellow. stated:"I cannotoverestimatethe
importanceof havingtheservicesof suchanextraordinarycardiologyspecialistas[thepetitioner]treatingour
veteranpopulation."
TheUSCISregulationsat8 C.F.R.§ 204.12spelloutthemeansby whichanalienphysiciancanqualifyfor a
nationalinterestwaiverby agreeingto workat a medicalfacilityunderthejurisdictionof theDepartmentof
VeteransAffairs(VA). assertedthatthepetitionerwouldservethenationalinterestby servingat
VA MedicalCenter,but therecordcontainsnoneof the documentaryevidence(suchasan
employmentcommitmentletterfroma VA facility)necessaryto meettheapplicableregulatoryrequirements.
Absentthis requiredevidence,it cannotsufficesimplyto assertthata VA facility wouldbenefitfrom the
petitioner'swork. Furthermore,thereisnootherevidencein therecordthatthepetitionerintendstoworkatany
VA facility,orthatanysuchfacilityintendstoemployhim(ratherthantemporarilyoverseepartofhistraining).
atLLUMC,contendedthatthepetitioner"is a physicianatthetopof
hisfield"whose mternationalreputation. . . securedhisprestigiouspositionat" LLUMC. Therecordcontains
noevidencethatthepetitioner's"prestigiousposition"atLLUMCwasanythingotherthanaroutine,short-term
trainingposition.
for GraduateMedicalEducationat
WSU,assertedthatthepetitioneris "a physicianscientistof superiorabilityin adultcardiovascularmedicine"
and"a recognizedauthorityin cardiovascularmedicine." describedvariousresearch
projectswhich, she claimed,haveearnedthe petitioner"a stellarreputationas a leadingauthorityin
cardiovascularmedicine."If thepetitioner'sreputationwereindeedof sucha caliber,thenit is reasonableto
expectevidenceof it beyondstatementsfromthepetitioner'sownmentorsandalumnifromhismedicalschool.
OnSeptember8,2011,thedirectorissuedarequestfor evidence.Thedirectorinformedthepetitionerthatthe
submittedevidencewasnotsufficienttoestablisheligibilityforthenationalinterestwaiver.Inresponse,counsel
stated:"werespectfullyrequestthependingpetitiontobereviewedonitsmerits."
ThedirectordeniedthepetitiononNovember30,2011.Thedirectorlistedmanyof thematerialssubmittedwith
thepetition,includingthepetitioner'spublishedandpresentedwork,andconcludedthatthematerialsdo not
self-evidentlydistinguishthepetitionerfromhis peersto a sufficientextentto warrantgrantingthe special
benefitof thenationalinterestwaiver. Thedirectorfoundthatthe witnessletterscontained"dramaticand
hyperboliclanguage,"praisingthepetitioner'sabilitytoperformroutineproceduresasevidenceof hisascension
tothepinnacleof hisfield.
On appeal,counselcontendsthat "the impactof [the petitioner's]work has spreadbeyondhis hospital
communityandhadasignificantnationalinfluencein improvinghealthcare."Counseldoesnotelaborateorcite
anyevidenceto supportthisvagueclaim.Theunsupportedassertionsof counseldonotconstituteevidence.See
Matterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534n.2(BIA 1988);MatterofLaureano,19I&N Dec.1,3 n.2(BIA
1983);MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).
Counselassertsthatthepetitionerwill benefitthenationalinterestbyperformingmedicalresearch.Performing
researchdoesnotguaranteeapprovalof thewaiver,becauseresearchersgenerallyfall underthestatutoryjob
offerrequirement.Furthermore,counsel'snewassertionthatthepetitioner"desire[s]to combineclinicalcare
with research"contradictsthepreviousassertionthatthepetitioneris "a pureclinician." Counsel'sappellate
statementplacesa muchheavieremphasison researchthan did counsel'sintroductorystatement.This
significant shift amountsto a material change in the petitioner's claimed future activities. A petitioner may not
make material changesto a petition that has alreadybeen filed in an effort to make an apparentlydeficient
petitionconformtoUSCISrequirements.SeeMatterofIzummi,221&NDec.169,175(Comm'r1998);Matter
ofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971),which requirethatbeneficiariesseekingemployment-
basedimmigrantclassificationmustpossessthenecessaryqualificationsasof thefiling dateof the visapetition.
Morefundamentally,therecordsimplydoesnotofferobjectivesupportfor counsel'sclaimthatthepetitioner's
pastresearchhashad"tremendousnationalimpact,"or thathis "recordof publicationandcitationby later
researchersisveryimpressive."Thepetitionerhassubmittednoobjective,credibleevidencethathestandsapart
fromotherrecently-trainedphysicianswhoperformedresearchaspartof theirtraining.Thepetitioner,through
counselandvariouswitnesses,hassimplydescribedhis work andthendeclaredit to be of unparalleled
importance.Unsupportedclaimscannotestablisheligibilityfor thenationalinterestwaiver,regardlessof the
scaleof thoseclaims,andregardlessof whetherthepetitionermakestheclaimshimselfor haswitnessesdoso
onhisbehalf.
Page8
As is clearfroma plainreadingof thestatute,it wasnottheintentof Congressthateverypersonqualifiedto
engagein a professionin theUnitedStatesshouldbe exemptfromtherequirementof ajob offerbasedon
nationalinterest.Likewise,it doesnotappearto havebeentheintentof Congressto grantnationalinterest
waiversonthebasisof theoverallimportanceof agivenprofession,ratherthanonthemeritsof theindividual
alien.Onthebasisof theevidencesubmitted,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatawaiverof therequirement
of anapprovedlaborcertificationwill bein thenationalinterestoftheUnitedStates.
Theburdenof proofin theseproceedingsrestssolelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8U.S.C.§
1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.