dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cardiology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-P-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 18,2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a physician specializing in cardiology, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b )(2), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). In addition, the Petitioner seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement that is normally attached to this classification. See § 203(b)(2)(B)(i) the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). This discretionary waiver allows U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) to provide an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus 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 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he 
had not established that a waiver of a job offer would be in the national interest. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he satisfies the national interest waiver 
requirements. 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. -
(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 
Matter ofC-P-
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) National interest waiver .... the Attorney General1 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. 
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). 
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 
employment in an area of substantial 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 
establish 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 
The Director. determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. The Petitioner has 
established that his work as a physician is in an area of substantial intrinsic merit and that. the 
1 Pursuant to section 1517 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ("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 ofC-P-
proposed benefits of his cardiology research would be national in scope. It remains, then, to 
determine whether the Petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an 
available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on June 6, 2014. At the time 
of filing, the Petitioner was working as a senior cardiology fellow at _ 
in Michigan. The Petitioner indicated that his work in the field of cardiology is in the 
national interest of the United States. The Director determined that the Petitioner's impact and 
influence on his field did not satisfy the third prong of the NYSDOT national interest analysis. 
In addition to documentation of his published and presented work, peer review activities, research 
funding, professional memberships, and medical training credentials, the Petitioner submitted 
various reference letters discussing his work in the field. With respect to the Petitioner's research 
concerning modes of intervention in peripheral artery disease, . director of the 
at , indicated that the Petitioner's two articles 
comparing laser-assisted balloon angioplasty with balloon angioplasty were the largest studies with 
the longest follow-up time thus far reported in the medical literature. further stated that 
the study 
' Although the Petitioner's medical research has value, any research must be original and 
likely to present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the medical or scientific 
community. In order for a university, publisher or grantor to accept any research for graduation, 
publication· or funding, the research must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
Not every cardiology fellow who performs original research that adds to the general pool of 
knowledge in the field inherently serves the national interest to an extent that is sufficient to waive 
the job offer requirement. 
With regard to the Petitioner's published and presented work, there is no presumption that every 
published article or conference presentation demonstrates influence on the field as a whole; rather, 
the Petitioner must document the actual impact of his article or presentation. In this instance, there 
is no evidence showing that once disseminated through publication or presentation, the Petitioner's 
two articles concerning laser-assisted balloon angioplasty have garnered a significant number of 
independent citations or that his findings have otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
, associate professor of mediCine at the 
section chief at the 
and cardiology 
stated that the Petitioner's research 
assessing "procedural and peri-procedural outcomes in patients ... where laser atherectomy was used 
for revascularization in popliteal and infra-popliteal vessels was presented to the 
for approval of Excimer laser-assisted angioplasty in 
Japan." Similarly, clinical assistant professor of pediatric cardiology, 
indicated that the Petitioner's research reviewing laser-assisted balloon 
angioplasty versus balloon angioplasty alone for below knee peripheral arterial disease was "presented 
to the for approval of laser catheter, evidencing 
the significant impact that his works have had in the field." 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-P-
While and both stated that the Petitioner's work was "presented"to the 
for approval of laser-assisted angioplasty, they 
did not indicate how the Petitioner's work specifically affected the agency's decision or how it has 
otherwise advanced the field of cardiology as a whole. In addition, the Petitioner did not submit any 
corroborating documentation from the agency reflecting the laser procedure's approval or explaining 
the "significant impact" of his work. 
director of echocardiography and nuclear cardiology at 
noted that the Petitioner has expertise in performing "complex 
cardiology procedures such as Cardiac Catheterization, Echocardiography, Cardiac Stress Testing, 
Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Emergency Procedures and Electrophysiology Related 
Procedures." In addition, stated that the Petitioner "has experience in 
performing the newest cardiac procedures" and that this "sets him apart from other cardiologists." A 
statement that a petitioner possesses useful skills or experience relates to whether similarly-trained 
workers are available in the United States and falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of 
Labor through the labor certification process. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. 
also mentioned that the Petitioner "is a peer-reviewer for the 
With regard to the Petitioner's services as a peer reviewer, it is common for a publication to ask 
multiple reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. The publication's editorial staff 
may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining whether to publish or reject submitted 
papers. Thus, peer review is routine in the field, and there is no evidence demonstrating that the 
Petitioner's occasional participation· in the widespread peer review process is an indication that he will 
serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having 
the same minimum qualifications. 
an assistant professor and cardiologist at the and 
director of the electrophysiology section at the 
indicated that the Petitioner performed "breakthrough research" addressing "the current lack of medical 
knowledge of the normal range of QT interval in patients with ventricular pacing." In addition, 
stated that the Petitioner's "pioneering research found that ventricular pacing 
significantly prolongs QTc interval in patients with normal and wide QRS complexes but more 
pronounced in those with baseline narrow QRS complex." further noted that the 
Petitioner's work "provides very useful information for cardiologists nationwide and increases their 
awareness of this important EKG [electrocardiogram] change in patients with pacemaker or 
defibrillator implants." did not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's 
work has affected treatment practices at various cardiology centers or has otherwise influenced the 
field as a whole. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-P-
professor of medicine at _ at 
indicated that the Petitioner has presented his work at "the 
Annual 
Conference, Annual Scientific Meeting of the 
. Annual Meeting of the 
, and the Annual Meeting of the With 
respect to the documentation reflecting that the Petitioner has presented his findings at various 
cardiology meetings and medical conferences, we note that many professional fields regularly hold 
meetings and conferences to present new work, discuss new findings, and to network with other 
professionals. Professional associations, educational institutions, healthcare organizations, 
employers, and government agencies promote and sponsor these meetings and conferences. 
Although presentation of the Petitioner's work demonstrates that he shared his original findings with 
others, there is no documentary evidence showing, for instance, frequent independent citation of his 
. work, or that his findings have otherwise influenced the field of cardiology at a level sufficient to 
waive the job offer requirement. 
further stated: 
In his research study on 
[the Petitioner] found that 
Moreover, he found that 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided copies of only two 
articles citing to the aforementioned stroke risk assessment study, and he has not established that the 
number of independent cites to his study is indicative of its impact on the field as a whole. A 
substantial number of favorable independent citations for an article is ·an indicator that other 
researchers are familiar with the work and have been influenced by it. A lack of citations, on the 
other hand, is generally not probative of an article's impact in the field. Furthermore, the Petitioner 
has not submitted any documentary evidence showing that his work has affected diagnostic or 
treatment protocols at various medical centers with corresponding improvement in patient outcomes, 
or has otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE included additional letters of support. 
associate professor of medicine at mentioned the Petitioner's article entitled 
in _ 2014. stated that the Petitioner's "findings serve as important 
evidence to allow cardiologists to use [the] laser athrectomy [sic] device with more confidence to 
perform limb salvage procedure · and to treat complex blockades of the arteries when result from 
balloon angioplasty is inadequate." The aforementioned 2014 article, however, was 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-P-
published after the filing date of the Form 1-140 on June 6, 2014. Eligibility must be established at 
the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1971). Accordingly, we cannot consider the Petitioner's findings in 
that were not yet published as of the filing date and, thus, had not 
been disseminated in 
the field, to establish his eligibility at the time of filing. 
an interventional cardiologist at 
Petitioner's studies in 
indicated that the 
2014) and 
2014) "provide strong evidence to support the 
use of laser in terms of improved efficacy and safety in both immediate and long term outcome" and 
stated that the two "articles will likely have significant impact in our field of practice." 
expectation regarding the possible future impact of the Petitioner's work, however, is not evidence 
of his eligibility at the time of filing. 
clinical assistant professor in the Section of Cardiovascular Diseases, 
stated that the Petitioner's laser in infra-- -popliteal and popliteal stenosis 2 (LIPS 2) study presented at the 
provided "3-year fellow up data that showed favorable results." In 
addition, attested that the aforementioned "findings have made a tremendous impact on 
the field" and expressed his confidence in expanding "the use of laser atherectomy to non-critical 
limb ischemia patients." We note that the was held in ~ 2014. Again, 
eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, we cannot consider any presentations given after June 6, 2014, the 
date the petition was filed, as evidence to establish the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. 
, a physician specializing in internal medicine and pulmonary and critical care at 
mentioned the Petitioner's article entitled 
Data from registry." 
With respect to his clinical practice, attested that the Petitioner's findings ''have provided a 
significant impact." further explained: "It gives me confidence that I am applying [the] 
best treatment strategy that works for our patient population and prescribing anticoagulation drug to 
truly high-risk patients, and sparing bleeding side effect to low-risk counterparts who do not need 
one." While indicated that Petitioner's study increased his confidence applying the 
and providing anticoagulation drug treatment 
in patients with atrial fibrillation, he did not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's 
findings have altered assessment and treatment procedures in the medical field or have otherwise had 
an impact on the field of cardiology as a whole. 
vice-chair of the 
the Petitioner "found that -
stated that 
and 
anticoagulation strategy in patients with AF [atrial fibrillation] with low score." In 
addition, indicated that following the· Petitioner's pioneering work, "the 
Guideline for 
the management of patients with atrial fibrillation suggested using 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-P-
The Petitioner, however, did 
not submit any corroborating documentation from the aforementioned organizations reflecting the new 
patient management guideline or indicating that the revised guidance was primarily attributable to his 
work. USCIS need not rely on unsubstantiated statements. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in 
immigration benefits adjudications). There is no evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's 
findings have affected the field as a whole. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of varying .probative value. We have addressed the specific assertions 
above. Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in 
the field have little probative value. Id. In addition, uncorroborated statements are insufficient. See 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding USCIS' decision to give 
limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field); See also Matter of Caron 
Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding that an agency "may, in its discretion, use 
as advisory opinions statements ... submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought 
and "is not required to accept or may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way 
questionable"). The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; US CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the petitioner's eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). As the submitted 
reference letters did not establish that the Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole, they 
do not demonstrate his eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
On appeal, the Petitioner lists his various research accomplishments, but as indicated above, there is 
no documentary evidence showing that his work has affected the field of cardiology as a whole. In 
addition, the Petitioner mentions his "leading and critical roles as a Senior Cardiology Fellow" at 
providing primary care, .critical care, and emergency care to patients suffering from 
cardiovascular diseases. Along with his work experience at the Petitioner describes his 
expertise in performing complex medical procedures in his specialty such as peripheral 
catheterization, coronary angiography, and cardiac catheterization. We note, however, that any 
objective qualifications which are necessary for the performance of the occupation can be articulated in 
an application for labor certification. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 220-21. Furthermore, the 
Petitioner states that he has taught cardiac procedures to junior and senior physicians, medical students, 
and cardiologists at The instruction and training provided by the Petitioner, while important to 
the medical trainees at do not have the requited national scope to merit a waiver of the job 
offer requirement. See I d. at 21 7, n.3. 
The Petitioner also mentions the adverse effects of coronary heart disease in the United States, and thus 
our nation's need for qualified cardiologists. General statements regarding the importance of a given 
field of endeavor, or the urgency of an issue facing the United States, cannot by themselves establish 
that an individual benefits the national interest by virtue of engaging in the field. I d. at 217. Such 
information addresses only the "substantial intrinsic merit" prong of NYSDOT's national interest test. 
Matter ofC-P-
We do not dispute the importance of having skilled cardiologists working in our nation's healthcare 
institutions. At issue in this matter, however, is whether the Petitioner's individual contributions in 
the field are of such significance that he merits the special benefit of a national interest waiver. 
Lastly, the Petitioner contends that his unique skills, medical knowledge, and cardiology expertise 
are not amenable to the labor certification process. The inapplicability or unavailability of a labor 
certification, however, cannot be viewed as sufficient cause for a national interest waiver; a 
petitioner still must demonstrate that he will serve the national interest to a substantially greater 
degree than do others in his field. !d. at 218, n.5. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Considering the letters and other evidence in the aggregate, the record does not establish that the 
Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole or that he will otherwise serve the national 
interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum 
qualifications. The Petitioner has not shown 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 he seeks. 
A plain reading of the statute indicates that it was not the intent of Congress that every advanced degree 
professional or alien of exceptional ability should be exempt from the requirement of a job offer based 
on national interest. Although a petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, he must have "a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence 
on the field as a whole." !d. at 219, n.6. On the basis ofthe evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national 
interest of the United States. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. 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. 
Cite as Matter ofC-P-, ID# 16273 (AAO Apr. 18, 2016) 
8