dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cardiology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-M-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative. Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 25,2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a physician and researcher in the field of cardiology, seeks classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree. See section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § ll53(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver 
(NIW) of the job offer requirement that is normally attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. 
See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director found that the Petitioner 
established his eligibility as an advanced degree professional, but did not establish that a waiver of 
the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief in which he argues 
that the Director's decision did not sufficiently articulate a ground for denial, and that the previously 
submitted evidence demonstrates his eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate his or her 
qualification for the underlying visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification 
normally requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is 
required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or 
Aliens of Exceptional Ability. -
Matter of A-M-S-
(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) Subject to clause (ii), 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.[1] 
(ii)(I) The Attorney General shall grant a national interest waiver pursuant to 
clause (i) on behalf of any alien physician with respect to whom a petition for 
preference classification has been filed under subparagraph (A) if-
(aa) the alien physician agrees to work full time as a physician in an area 
or areas designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as 
having a shortage of health care professionals or at a health care facility 
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and 
(bb) a Federal agency or a department of public health in any State has 
previously determined that the alien physician's work in such an area or at 
such facility was in the public 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!st Cong., I st Sess., II (1989). 
Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT), set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a 
request for a national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must demonstrate that he or she seeks 
1 Pursuant to section 1517 of the Homeland Security Act of2002 ("HSA"), Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135,2311 
(codified at 6 U.S.C. § 557 (2012)), any reference to the Attorney General in a provision of the Act describing functions 
that were transferred from the Attorney General or other Department of Justice official to the Department of Homeland· 
Security by the HSA "shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary" of Homeland Security. See also 6 U.S. C. § 542 note 
(2012); 8 U.S.C. § 1551 note (2012). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-S-
employment in an area of subst~tial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must show that 
the proposed benefit will be national in scope. !d. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must 
demonstrate that the national interest would be adversely affected if a labor certification were 
required by establishing that he or she will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree 
than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. !d. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, a petitioner's assurance 
that he or she will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to establish prospective 
national benefit. !d. at 219. Rather, a petitioner must justify projections of future benefit to the 
national interest by establishing a history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of 
influence on the field as a whole. !d. at 219, n.6. 
II. ANALYSIS 
· In addition to finding that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional, the Director 
determined 
that his proposed work as a cardiology researcher has substantial intrinsic merit and that 
the benefits of such work are national in scope. The only finding at issue in this matter is whether 
the Petitioner established that his past record of achievement is sufficient to meet the third prong of 
the NYSDOT national interest waiver analysis. 
At the time of filing the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the Petitioner was 
employed as a resident assistant professor at in 
Nebraska. In an introductory _letter, he indicated that his work involves clinical treatment, medical 
research, and teaching duties. He stated that his research, which focuses on improving the treatment 
of cardiovascular disease, "is having a widespread impact on the quality of medical care across the. 
United States." 
Documentation supporting the Form I-140 included evidence regarding the Petitioner's credentials, 
professional memberships, research activities, grants from and his service as a 
peer reviewer in his field. The Petitioner provided copies of nine published journal articles and 
several conference presentations that he had authored or co-authored, and documentation indicating 
that his work had been cited six times. He also submitted letters ±rom professionals in his tield 
attesting to his clinical expertise and the significance of his medical research? 
professor of medicine at stated that the 
Petitioner "has done several important studies on heart disease that have had a great e±Iect on the 
way patients with cardiac disease are treated in the United States." He did not further describe the 
Petitioner's past research studies or their impact, but discussed a prospective research project in 
which the Petitioner will study the effect of statins on atrial fibrillation after heart surgery. 
2 While we discuss only a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-S-
indicated that this will be the first study to "compare statins in different doses rather than 
the drug vs. a placebo." 
director of cardiac electrophysiology at the 
described a study in which the Petitioner and his colleagues demonstrated a positive association 
between epicardial fat (fat surrounding the heart) and diastolic heart failure, and that obese patients 
have a greater amount of epicardial fat. He stated that the resulting publication in the 
has "already been cited," and he attested to knowledge of other 
clinicians and researchers who have relied on the Petitioner's findings but "have not yet had the 
opportunity to publish their research and cite [the Petitioner's] articles." 
In another letter, a professor at the 
stated that the Petitioner "played a crucial role in several outstanding research projects." As an 
example, he described a study in which the Petitioner investigated the significance of reciprocal ST­
segment depression changes on an electrocardiogram after a heart attack. indicated 
that a key finding of the research was "that it is very important to perform revascularization in heart 
attack patients in rural areas," and that this insight "can be applied nationwide." He stated that 
another important finding was that radial artery access has advantages over the standard femoral 
approach to coronary intervention in heart attack patients. He indicated that the research was 
"shared widely" through meeting presentations and a publication, and "has already been cited." He 
further attested that he "expect[s] many more researchers to refer to it in the future, as it has major 
implications for the practice of cardiovascular medicine in the United States." 
associate professor of medicine at discussed the 
Petitioner's involvement in research concerning Chagas disease, a disease endemic to Latin America 
that is "relatively unknown" in the United States. He stated that the Petitioner and his colleagues 
performed research that provided crucial data on the prevalence of Chagas disease in the United 
States and helped increase awareness among the public and in the medical profession. He indiCated 
that the research was disseminated through presentations 
and publications in several journal articles 
and "has been cited three times." further stated that the research team "received 
support for this project from internationally well-known organizations such as the Center for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) and Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi)," and that their 
work "was covered in the popular press." The Petitioner provided a copy of a 2012, article in 
the which quotes his co-author director of the Chagas 
treatment program at The article does not specifically reference 
research conducted by the Petitioner or his colleagues, but it discusses community outreach efforts 
taken by program. The record also includes the transcript of a 
program in which discusses the lack of awareness and attention surrounding Chagas 
disease. 
In addition to discussing the Petitioner's research as noted, some of the above letters described his 
teaching skills and his clinical expertise, including his skills in performing complex medical 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-S-
procedures .. Several of the letters also mentioned a shortage of cardiologists in the United States, 
and the Petitioner submitted copies of media articles addressing that issue. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted that the third prong of NYSDOT requires a 
petitioner to establish a history of achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a 
whole. The RFE stated that the record demonstrated the Petitioner's "potential to be an influence" 
on his field, but that the "corroborating evidence" did not establish that he had achieved such 
influence. The Director requested documentation regarding his past record of specific pnor 
achievement, including additional evidence regarding citation and recognition of his work. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted documentation regarding his recent research projects, peer 
review work, presentations, and publications since filing, and updated evidence showing 10 total 
citations of his research. He also provided two additional letters of support. 
chief cardiology fellow at the discussed his own 
citation of a case study that the Petitioner published, and attested to gaining significant knowledge 
from the Petitioner's article that he can apply to his own patients where appropriate. He stated: 
"[The Petitioner's] paper has made us aware of the fact that there is a possible link between cocaine 
abuse and isolated right ventricular infarction, and provides us with a valuable insight tor future 
clinical practice and research." 
In the second letter, associate professor of medicine at the 
described a recent study in which the Petitioner investigated implantable 
cardioverter .defibrillators (ICDs). While ICDs are traditionally tested upon implantation, the 
Petitioner found that such testing has no effect on outcomes and is thus unnecessary. 
characterized the Petitioner's findings as "a breakthrough discovery," and stated that "the cost 
savings 
that should result from application of the results could be quite profound." He indicated that 
the presentation of this research received "a great deal of attention" at an annual scientific meeting of 
the and attested to his certainty that "the recommendations from this study 
will be widely applied." 
The Petitioner also provided a copy of a February 16, 2015, letter offering him a fellowship position 
in the program at In a 
letter responding to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the offer letter shows has 
recognized that [his] past achievements justifies [sic] the projection of future achievements," and 
asked that USCIS "apply similar criteria to evaluate [the Petitioner's] credentials and come to the 
same conclusion." In addition, the Petitioner contended that the previously submitted letters 
constituted credible evidence of his influence on the field, and that they were further supported by 
corroborative documentary evidence, including copies ofhis publications, presentations and research 
projects. 
In denying the Form I-140, the Director found that the record lacked "independent and objective 
evidence of the [Petitioner's] influence on the field" to satisfy the third prong of the NYSDOT 
analysis. The decision stated that the Petitioner had not demonstrated a significant record of citation, 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-S-
and that the submitted letters, while complimentary of the Petitioner's work, were insufficient to 
establish his eligibility for a national interest waiver. The Director indicated that the Petitioner had 
contributed research to his field, but that "it must also be shown that your contributions have 
significantly impacted the field, and the record lacks such evidence." On appeal, the Petitioner 
contends that his previously submitted evidence establishes his eligibility for a national interest 
waiver, and that the Director's decision did not adequately explain the basis for the denial. 
We disagree with the Director's interpretation of NYSDOT's third prong as requiring a petitioner to 
have "significantly impacted" his field of endeavor. As stated above, the analysis set forth in 
NYSDOT requires a petitioner to establish "a past history of demonstrable achievement with some 
degree of influence on the field as a whole." I d. at 219, n. 6. 
The Petitioner provided letters attesting to the importance of his work, and many of these letters 
describe the potential of his findings to affect medical research and clinical practice. For instance, 
stated that the findings from the Petitioner's research on lCD testing "will be widely 
applied" and "should result" in profound cost savings. In addition, indicated that the 
results of the Petitioner's study reciprocal ST-segment depression changes "can be applied 
nationwide." However, these statements of prospective benefit do not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's findings have already influenced clinical treatments of such conditions. Several letters 
included statements that the Petitioner's research has "already been cited" or has affected the 
practice of cardiology, but neither the content of the letters or the evidence in the record is sufficient 
to support a finding that his record of citation is indicative of an impact on the field as a whole, or 
that his research has been widely implemented in ciinical settings. Statements made without 
supporting documentary evidence are of limited probative value and. are not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). 
We note that the Petitioner contended in his RFE response letter that copies of his publications and 
presentations serve as corroborative evidence of his inf1uence on the field. Although such evidence 
demonstrates that the Petitioner's research findings were shared with others ·and may be 
acknowledged as original based on their selection to be presented or published, it does not establish 
that those findings have had an impact on the field as a whole. In addition, the Petitioner argued that 
his selection for a fellowship program shows that found his past 
record sufficient to justify projections of future achievement. However, the record does not include 
evidence indicating that the Petitioner's fellowship was awarded based on a finding that he had a 
degree of influence on the field as a whole, as we seek here. With regard to the Petitioner's request 
that we "apply similar criteria" to that used by the fellowship selection committee, we note that, by 
law, we are required to follow the analysis set forth in NYSDOT as published precedent. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c), which indicates that precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS officers. For 
the reasons discussed above, we find the record insufficient to establish that the Petitioner has had 
some degree of influence on the field as a whole. 
6 
Matter of A-M-S-
Regarding the evidence submitted at the time of filing about the demand for cardiologists in the 
United States, we note that section 203(b )(2)(B)(ii) of the Act describes an alternative waiver for 
certain physicians who agree to work in an area designated by the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services as having a shortage of health care professionals or at a health care facility under the 
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. To quality for that waiver, it is not sufficient for a 
petitioner to submit evidence regarding a shortage of physicians in his or her field of practice. 
Rather, the waiver is limited to certain physicians who follow specific requirements set forth in the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.12. The Petitioner has not addressed or attempted to meet these 
regulatory requirements. · 
III. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o{Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). The Petitioner in 
this case has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that his past record of achievement 
is at a level sufficient to waive the job offer requirement which, by law, normally attaches to the visa 
classification sought by the petitioner. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal i~ dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-M-S-, ID# 16702 (AAO May 25, 2016) 
7