dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Endocrinology

\. .. ~ .. - .. 
. identifying da~ deleted to . 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privac)' 
U~S.·DepiirtinelltofHomeland Security 
D.s. CItizenship and irriirugi-aticinServlces 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
US. Citizellship . 
and IIl1migration 
ServiCes PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: . 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the deciSion of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to thafoffice. 
If you believe,Jhe law Was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
inforni.ation that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form ·I-290B:' Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630: Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion 'seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you;· . 
~~~ 
~erryRhew.. . 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DisCUSSION: The Director, Tt~xas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa I 
. petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
, dismissed. 'I 
The petitioner seeks clasSification pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member Of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as a physician. The petitioner asserts 
that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of an alien employment certification, is 
in the national interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner had 
.not established that an exemption from,the requirement of a job offer would be in the national int~est 
of the Uni'ted States. 
On appeal, counsel submits a statement. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's 
determihation that the petitioner, an endocrinologist who completed her feilowship training in 
endocrinology two months before filing the petition, has not established her eligibility for the benefit 
sought. As will be discussed below, one of the bases of eligibility claimed,a shortage of 
endocrinologists, falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Section 212(a)(5)(A) of the 
'Act. Theremaiping evidence falls so far short of the hyperbolic language used in some of the reference 
letters as to diminish the credibi1ity of those letters~ Ultimately, the petitioner has not demonstrated 
why the alienemployinent certification process will not serve the national interest in this matter. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part that: 
( 
\ 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holdipg 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 iIi the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, arid whose services in the sciences, arts, professiops, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver6fjob6ffer. 
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to 
be in the na.tionalinterest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) 
that an alien's services in the "sciences, arts, professions, or business be' 
sought by ,an: eniployer in the United States. 
Page 3 
The petitioner holds a medical degree from the The petitioner's occupation 
falls wit~ the pertinent regulatory definition of a profession. The petitioner thus qualifies as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue is whether the petitioner 
has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus an alien employment certification, is 
in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionaily, Congress 
did not provide a specific definition of the phrase, "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.numbet and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess.,ll (1989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the linmigration Act of 1990 
(IMMACT), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), states, in pertinent part: 
The Service believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as 
possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must 
make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national 
benefit" ,[required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest 
with the alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on itsownrrierits. 
·Mattet of New York State Dep't. ofTransp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Comm'r. 1998) (hereinafter 
"NYSDOT"), has set forth 'several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, the petitioner must show that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. Id. at 217. Next, the petitioner must show that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. Id. 'Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve 
the national interest to a· substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the 
same minimum qualifications. Id. at 217-18. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospf!ctive national benefit, the 
petitioner must establish that the alien's past recordjustifles projections of future benefit to the national 
interest. Id. at 219. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the 
national interest cannot suffice· to establish prospective national benefit. We include the term 
"prospective" to require future contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien 
with no demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be 
e:t:ltirely speCUlative. Id. " 
The petitioner submitted several articles discussing a shortage of endocrinologists in the United States. 
The inclusion of these articles suggests· that the request for a waiver. of the alien employment 
certification process is based, at least in part, on a shortage of endocrinologists. The assertion of a labor 
shortage should be teste4 through the alien employment certification process. Id. at 220. The issue of 
." 
-- '- ~ _. -'--'--.--~----.-. -" .. ,' 
I 
Page 4 
whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States is an issue under the jurisdiction of 
the Department of Labor. Id. at 221. j 
", Counsel initially asserted that an employer seeking an alien employment certification from the 
Departinent of Labor may only include those job requirements normally required for the job. Counsel 
continues that these normal job requirements "fall short' in consideration of the nature of [the 
petitioner's] work in endocrinology, because the factors relating to this scientific technique transcend 
the 'context' of any specific employer's 'business' operation." Counsel notes that "understanding and 
properly diagnosing and treating s~rious disorders" have intrinsic merit relating directly to the national 
interest. Counsel concludes: 
Establishing ''business necessity" for ''unduly restrictive" requirements is outside the 
scope of the instant petition. As a physician, [the petitioner] is directly responsible 
for 'saving lives. Such skills cannot be measured in the context of business 
necessity." 
, 
(Emphasis in original.) Counsel's assertions regarding the inapplicability of the alien employment 
certification process appear to relate to all physicians, all of whom diagnose and treat patients and are 
evaluated based oil their clinical skills. There is, however, no blanket waiver for all competent 
physicians. We' note that Congress did create a limited waiver of the alien employment certification 
procesS for physicians workillg in shortage areas or veterans facilities.' Section 203(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the 
Act.. The petitioner does not seek a waiver under that provision. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, endocrinology. 
The director then concluded that the' petitioner was spending sufficient time conducting research 
such that the proposed benefits would be national in scope. In her initial cover letter, counsel 
asserted that the petitioner has reached a large and distin~ished audience through her publications 
and presentations and "frequently diagnoses and treats patients" on referral. Counsel further asserted ' 
that the petitioner is able to perform. "such advanced procedures that only a very small percentage of 
her peers are able to perforin." Counsel stated that the petitioner then teache~ these procedures to 
both junior and senior peers,. "creating a ripple effect that is making the performance of these 
proced1!Ies more widespread nationally." Counsel does not assert that the petitIoner developed the 
techniques themselves or a' widely adopted means of teaching these techniques to distinguish the . 
petitioner from the endocrin~logist who taught him: these techniques., 
\ 
In addressing what benefits might be national in scope in NYSDOT, the AAO stated: 
[t]he anilySis we follow in "national interest" cases under section 203(b )(2)(B) of the 
Act differs from that for standard "exceptional ability"cases under section 203(b )(2)(A) 
of the Act. In the latter type of case, the local labor market is considered through the 
labor certification process and the activity performed by the alien need not have a 
national effect. For instance, pr~ bono legal services as a whole serve the national 
-Page 5 
interest, but the impact of an individual attorney working pro bono would be so 
) -
attenuated at the national level as to be negligible. Similarly, while education is in the 
national interest, the impact of a single schoolteacher in one elementary school would 
not be in the natiorial interest for purposes of waiving the job offer requirement of 
section 203(b )(2)(B) of the Act. As another example, while nutrition has obvious 
intrinsic value, the work of one cook in one restaurant could not be considered 
sufficiently in the national interest for purposes of this provision of the Act. 
Id. at 217, n.3. Significantly, Congress is presumed to be aware of existing administrative and 
judicial interpretation of statute when it reenacts a statute. See L(Jrillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580 
(1978). In this instance, Congress'awareness of NYSDOT is a matter not of presumption, but of 
demonstrable fact. In 1999, Congress amended s·ection 203(b)(2) of the Act in direct response to the 
1998 precedent decision. Congress, at that time, could have. taken any number of actions to limit, 
modify, or compietely reverse the precedent decision, such as by applying the waiver to all 
physicians·or general surgeons. Instead, Congress let the decision stand, apart from a limited -
exception for certain physicians working in shortage areas, as described in section 203(b )(2)(B)(ii) of 
the Act. As stated above, while the petitioner submitted an article about a shortage of general 
surgeons, the petitioner does not seek a waiver under this provision. Because Congress has made no 
further statutory changes in the decade since NYSDOT, we can presume that Congress has no further 
objection to the precedent decision. 
Applying the above reasoning quoted from NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3, to the matter before 
us, the treatment of patients at a single hospital does not result in benefits that are discernible at the 
national level. Similarly, training colleagues in procedures developed by others provides benefits 
that are negligible at the national level. Thus, the only proposed benefits of the petitioner's work that 
could be national in scope are those resulting from her research .. 
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. Eligibility for the 
waiver must rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the position sought. In othe~, 
words, we generally do not accept the argument that a given project is so important that any alien 
qualified to work on this project must also qualify for a national interest waiver. NYSDOT, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 218. Moreover, it cannot suffice to stat~ that the alien possesses useful skills, or a "unique 
background." Special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national 
. interest threshold. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States 
is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. at 221. 
At issue is whether this petitioner's contributions in the field ate of such unusual significance that the 
petitioner merits the speciai benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa 
classification she seeks. By seeking an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof. 
A petitioner must demonstrate a past history .of achievement with some degree of influence on the 
field as a whole. Jd. at 219, n. 6. In evaluating the petitioner's achievements, we note that original 
c 
Page 6 
innovation, such as demonstrated by a patent, is insufficient by itself. Whether the specific 
innovation serves the national interest must be de~ided on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 221, n. 7. 
Initially, counsel asserted that. the petitioner is a member of "prestigious organizations" that limit 
membership "to those physician-scientists who have attained an extraordinary level of expertise in 
endocrinology unparalleled by their colleagues." The unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter oj Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 
19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter oJRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
and the_ 
The petItioner also 
.LJ~IJ~VJlHUIL,",. in internal medicine through the 
The petitioner's membership in the was at the "fellow/student associate" level. On 
July 11,2008, the petitioner was aavised that, based on her completion of her formal training, she was 
eiigible to become an active member. According to the materials submitted by the petitioner_ is 
. open to "physicians with special education, training and interest in the practice of clinical 
endocrinology." _ is open to any "individual with a doctoral degree (or research experience 
equivalent to that required for such a degree) Who has demonstrated a major and continuing interest in 
the field of bone and mineral metabolism." Applicants are "encouraged to have published at least one 
creditable paper, monograph, or other publication in the field of bone and mineral research." The ( 
petitioner did not provide the membership requirements for the _ or the _ As stated above, 
certification by_ is based on demonstrated competency in a specialty based on examination 
results .. 
) 
Professional memberships are one of the types of evidence that may be submitted to establish 
exceptional. ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). Because exceptional ability, by itself, does not 
justify a waiver of the job offer/labor certification requirement, arguments hinging on professional 
memberships, while'relevant, are not dispositive to the matter at hand. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 
222. As discussed above, the record contains no ·evidence that metnbership in the above societies is 
limited to those who have influenced the field or are otherwise indicative of the petitioner's influence in 
the field. 
On appeal, counsel reverses her initial claims about the petitioner's memBerships. Specifically, counsel 
now acknowledges that "these societies do not require outstanding achievements on the part of their 
members.;' She asserts, however, that "this is not the norm with regard to American medical societies." . 
Even assuming that, in general, U.S. medical societies require only a certain level of education, interest 
or competency, that fact does not make the petitioner's memberships more meaningful. That the 
Page 7 
petitioner has chosen to join multiple societies open to trained endocrinologists rather than one is not 
persuasive evidence of her influen:ce in the field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that she began earning $140,000 on July 1, 2008, seven years after 
receiving her medical degree. The petitioner also submitted evidence that the median salary for 
endocrinologists with five to seVen years of experience is $157,084. Previously, the petitioner earned 
$45,500 annually from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004, $55,114 in 2006, $44,122 from July 1, 2005 
through June 30, 2007 and $49,580 from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. Once again, these 
numbers do not exceed the mean for the number of years of experience as documented in She record. 
Even if the petitioner had demonstrated that her salary Was notable, a salary indicative of exceptional 
ability is another type of eviden~,e that may be used to establish exceptional ability. Once again, 
exceptional ability, by itself, does not justify a waiver of the job offer/labor certification requirement. 
Thus, arguments hinging on the petitioner's salary, while relevant, are not dispositive to the matter at 
hand. See id. at 222. 
The record contains letters that counsel characterizes as job offers. This evidence actually consists of 
promotional materials soliciting job applications. The record contains no evidence that these employers 
actually offered the petitioner employrllent. Regardless, the petitioner's ability to secure employment in 
his field is not evidence that the alien employment certification process should be waived. We reiterate 
that any shortage of endocrinologists is an issue under the,jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. 
at 221. 
the petitioner submitted a September 19; 2007 email from of 
\,U""'U;:'''llJlJ<, the petitioner's participation with the development of The 
The petitioner was to write 
board reVIew questIons ort an "Endocrinology Question 
Subset," purportedly froin the above pUblication, but it bears no indicia of publication, such as page 
numbers. The Internet materials submitted are for the fourth edition. It remains that the petitioner has 
not demonstrated that she is a credited author for any published edition of the Cleveland Clinic 
Intensive Review of Internal Medicine. 
The petitioner submitted evaluations of her performance as an employee. While these evaluations may 
demonstrate her value to her employers, at issue is not whether the petitioner is a competent physician 
but whether she has demonstrated her influence in the field. ~ 
The petitioner submitted several grand round and resident/intern morning reports. These appear to be 
routine internal presentations whereby interns and residents share their experiences. The record lacks 
any evidence that these presentations have had a wider influence in the field. 
Page 8 
The petitioner submitted an email to staff at advising of the latest "Endo/Repro I Year 
1 Classrbom locations." The list of courses includes the petitioner as the teacher of two courses on 
growth hormones. As discussed above, a local teacher does not impart a benefit at the national level. 
The petitioner also submitted materials about conferences she has attended as a participant. The record 
does not establish that the petitioner presented her work at these conferences. The petitioner has not 
established that attending conferences goes beyond the routine activities in which endocrinologists 
engage to stay current in the field. 
The petitioner iilltially submitted two published articles and an linpublished manuscript. The petitioner . ~ 
also submitted four abstracts published as of the date of filing. in response to the director's request for 
additional evidence, the petitioner submitted, additional abstracts and a newly published article that 
postdate the filing of the petition, The petitioner must demonstrate her eligibility as of the date of 
filing. See 8 c.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 
1971). Thus, We will not consider research disseminated to the field after that date. 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner published her work "in some ofithe most esteemed 
journals" and presented her work at "prestigious national and international meeting." We will not 
presume that every article in a prestigious journal or presentation at a national or international 
conference ultimately influences the field. While the articles and abstract predating the filing of the 
,petition demonstrate that the petitioner has disseminated her work, at issue is the ultimate influence of 
that disseminated work. 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner's work "has been widely sited [sic] on the internet and used 
as a reference by other authors." As stated above, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 
at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. As part of an exhibit entitled "citations," the 
petitioner submitted an article by .. the petitioner's study in one paragraph and 
concluding -'·'These findingS suggest ATP ill guidelines on metabolic syndrome do have 
clinical relevance, according t() the researchers." __ does not credit the petitioner with 
developing the guidelines. Moreover, by using the word "suggest" and the phrase, "according to the 
researchers,"_ does not appear to find the petitione~:s study conclusive. 
The petitioner also submitted a summary of the petitioner's study that quotes the petitioner posted at 
www.consultantlive.com. The 2007 preface to the surnmaryst~tes: "This study waS published as an 
abstract and presented orally at a conference. These data and conclusions. should be considered to be 
preliminary published in a peer-:-reviewed publication.'" A sinlliar article appears at MedPage Today 
with the same disclaimer. In addition, the petitioner submitted a link to her online publication. A link 
demonstrates accessibility rather actual reliance as may be demonstrated by a citation. 
. . 
The petitioner submitted an exhibit entitled "Impact of Re'search Projects." The exhibit includes an 
article about a call for a comprehensive treatment regimen for patients with pre'-diabetes using a two-
Page 9 
pronged approach and related articles. Counsel notes that the was already involved in such 
research. The exhibit also includes an article reporting that was terminating the 
development of an inhaled insulin treatment for diabetics. notes petitioner is involved 
in a current trial to evaluate an insulin spray. Finally, the exhibit includes articles regarding the 
difficulty in diagnosing recurrence of thyroid cancer. Counsel asserts that the petitioner's "current 
research may help to alleviate this problem." 
Contrary to the title of this exhibit, .this evidence does not demonstrate the "impact" of the petitioner's 
research projects. Rather, they demonstrate the importance of the petitioner's area of research, which 
we have a'treadyacknowledged above. As stated above, we do not accept the argument that a given 
project is so important that any alien qualified to work on this project must also qualify for a national 
interest waiver. NYSDOT, 22rI&N Dec. at 218. 
Under ~ exhibit entitled "A~ards, Honors ~~ Distinction~cluded he~ certifica~e .for 
CompletIon of her "Fellow m graduate trammg" at the""""- Completmg a tra1lllng 
program, even a competitive program at a prestigious institution, is not an award, honor or distinction. 
Experience and skills can be enumerated on an application for alien employment certification and 
·cannot serve as a basisfot a waiver of that requirement. Id. at 221: 
The petitioner also submitted a "Certificate~of Recoghition'.~ from the_for "participating" at an 
_ atmual meeting with a poster presentation. This certificate does npt single out the petitioner's 
presentations from the other poster presentations. at the meeting. The petitioner also submitted 
evidence - "awarded'" her credit for continuing medical education. The petitioner has not 
explained how confimiation of participation. at a professional -event or completion of professional 
continuing education is an award, honor or distinction. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that the awarded the petitioner a 
2008 Preceptorship. During this program "fellows participate in specialty clinics and are introduced to 
research approaches and techniques that are particularly useful in these subspecialty areas." This 
-----program appears to be admission to a training program rather than recognition for past influence in the 
field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the awarded the petitioner one of 250 "travel 
awards" to attend a "Fellows and StUdent Day Workshop." The society issued a "Certificate of 
Attendance" confirming the petitioner's attendance at the workshop. _, The petitioner has not 
demonstrated that selection as one of 250 individuals for financial assistance to attend a training 
program is indicative of her influence in the field. Special or unusual knowledge or training, while 
perhaps attractive to the prospective U.S. employer, does not inherently meet the national interest 
threshold. Id.· at 2:21. 
awarded the petitioIier second place at. the 2007 
in Clinical Research competition. This award is an internal competition for junior 
/ 
-Page 10 
) . 
investigators working 'at the The petitioner has not demonstrated that this award is 
indicative of her wider influence in the field. 
~er submitted a "Certificate of Honour" the 
~i issued to the·petitioner in 1997. The hospital crossed out the ..... c .... rintc.rl 
"has been awarded" and merely confirmed the petitioner's membership on 
record does not contain evidence regarding this committee, such as its duties. Thus, this certificate 
does not confirm the petitioner's influence in endocrinology as a whole. Moreover, the petitioner did 
not begin her training specific to endocrinology prior to 1997. 
petltlclner completed hetiresidency and postdoctoral residency fellowship in internal medicine at. 
a university hospital of On her curriculum 
indicates that during this time she performed elective rotations at the_ 
She then served as a "Fellow in graduate training in Endocrinology, 
Diabetes & Metabolism" at June 30, 2008, two months before filing the 
~ In March 2008, the took an "intensive procedural certification course" at the _ 
__ As of the date of filing, the petitioner held a position as an "Associate Staff' member in the 
In July 2008, one month before the petitioner filed the 
petition, the approved a study listing the petitioner as a co-
principal investigator. 
, ( 
submitted lettersfroni. the above facilities and more independent locations. _ 
states that he is basing his 
opinion on the petItioner's research." As stated above, 
however, the petitioner worked at a hospital. _ discusses the impact 
of the diseases that eIidocrinologists treat.; As discussed above, however, we do not contest the 
sub~tan!ial.intriIisic merit of~e petitioner'~ioccupation.. d~scuss~s the pres~ige ~f 
the mstltutIorts where the petItIOner. has tramed as (!.Il, endocrmologIst. natIOnal mterest waIver IS 
not a blanket waiver for every individual who completes training at a prestigious institution. _ 
_ then concludes that the importance of) the petitioner's research is apparent from the 
publications in which it appeared and the cqnferences where she presented it. More persuasive than 
acceptance for pres~ntation or publication,! however, is the ultimate impact once published. • 
_ .asse~s that the petitioner's study "indicated th~atients with metabolic 
syndrome IS a nsk factor for death." Another reference,_ a staff member at the 
asserts that he worked with the petitioner on this study and that the study could Iiot 
have been completed without her input. Neither however, cites new 
guidelines issued based on this study or similar examples of its iIifluence in the field. 
acknowledge that the petitioner perforined rotations at thell •• 
where he has worked as an attending physician since 2002 and with which he has been affiliated since 
Page 11 
1999. asserts that the petitioner should be judged based on her ability to diagnose complex 
medical disorders which have baffled other physicians and perform challenging procedures. _ 
concludes that on this basis, the petitioner, who only completed her training two months before filing 
the petition, "is one of the very few at the top of her field." USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory assertions.! _ provides no examples of the petitioner diagnosing disorders that 
have "baffled" other endocrinologists or performing procedures that endocrinologists as a rule are" 
incompetent to perform. With regard to her research, _ asserts that the petitioner's study 
"implies that targeting even patients with prediabetes can help decrease the ultimate risk of death." 
Once again, cites no new guidelines based on the petitioner's research or similar examples 
of its influence. 
praises the petitioner's 
un'v", ''''''', metabolic bone disorders, 
osteoporosis and pituitary disorders. _ <:!.1lse'rts that the petitioner's "expertise in the 
diagnosis and treatment of esoteric endocrine problems affecting the bone and adrenal glands" sets 
her apart from "niost of the other endocrinologists.:" As an example • notes the petitioner's 
treatment ofpatiehts with Cushing's syndrome, a rare disease caused by excessive production of the 
steroid hoinione cortisol. _ discusses the difficulty in diagnosing this disease and lists the 
procedures the petitioner i~ perform. While the petitioner submitted articles discussing an 
, overall, shortage of endOCrinologists, the record contains no articles expressing concern that the 
majority of endocrinologists who have completed their internships, residencies and fellowships are 
still, unable to perform these medical procedures; As discussed above, the issue of whether there 
exists a shortage of endOCrinologists falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. at 
221. 
_ provides an example of a patient the petitioner successfully' treated. Specifically, the 
patient had diabetes and a neurological condition, requiring high doses of insulin through an insulin 
pump. _ explains that this patient required close monitoring and asserts that "other 
endocrinologists would not helVe been able to proceed in this manner." As stated above, USCIS need 
not accept primarily conclusory assertions.2 Regardless, even if the petitioner's familiarity with the \ 
insulin pilinp is somehow unique among endocrinologists, special or unusual knowledge or training, 
while perhaps attractive to the prospective U.S. employer, does not inherently meet the national interest 
threshold. !d. Ultimately, anecdotal examples of patient treatment cannot demonstrate that the benefits 
of the petitioner's work as a physician will be natIonal in scope.' ' 
tecent recounts another 
anecdote where the hospital referred a patient to the petitioner for specific tests she was able to 
successfully complete, ultimately resulting in a referral for successfullaparoscopy surgery. Once again, 
this anecdote demonstrates the petitioner's competence as an endocrinologist with skills that can be 
'1 '. , " . 
1756,Inc. v. The Attorney Gen'eral o/the United States, 745 F. SuPP. 9,15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
2 ' " 
1756, Inc., 745F. Supp. at 15. 
Page 12 
eiUlinerated ort an application for alien employment certification. This example of a successful patient 
outcome does not explain why the alien employment certification process should be waived in the 
national interest. In a subsequent letter, asserts that the petitioner's study "has directly led to 
improvements in patient care." We reiterate, however, that the record contains no new guidelines 
modified in response to the petitioner's study. 
the 
asserts that the petitioner's "expertise is sought for extremely complex 
cases that often came on referral" froin around the world. continues: "This is due to her 
reputation as a revered specialist." The use of the passive aild the use of the unmodified "this" makes 
these sentences somewhat ambiguous. It ~ that the utilizes the 
petitioner's expertise ori referrals and that th~does so because of her reputation within 
that institution._ does not suggest that the referring institutions refer patients specifically to 
the petitioner based on her reputation outside of the The record contains no evidence 
that the on its website or in other official materials, promotes its endocrinology 
department as SIgnificant because ofthe petitioner's unique skills. Rather, the website 
materials in the record merely listed the petitioner as one of the hospital's new appomtments and 
include her education and training institutions in its physician. direCtory. 
The petitioner did submit more independent letters. at the 
asserts that he saw the petitioner's poster presentation on 
using teriparatide for osteoporosis at an 
important research" in his oWn practice. 
used teriparatide based on the petitioner's research. 
. and that he "can utilize this 
does not suggest that he has actually successfully 
discusses the complexity of 
endocrinology as a specialty. We are not persuaded that the national interest waiver was intended as a 
blanket waiver for every complex medical specialty, of which there are presumably several, or even just 
endocrinology. _ then discusses the shortage of endocrinologists. We reiterate that the issue 
of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Labor. Id. at 221. 
_ asserts that the sees complex diabetic patients undergoing transplants 
and cardiac bypass surgeries, requiring an intelligent and experienced physician to manage the blood 
sugar of these patients. _ concludes that the petitioner is "among the few who have 
excelled in the treatment of diabetes of all complexities.;' _ does not explain why other 
hospitals do not see surgical patients with diabetes and, thus, why the petitioner's experiences are 
unique. _ then !iiscusses a specific test and asserts that the petitioner "is one of the few 
who can use these effective and modem technologies to diagnose patients with serious diseases." 
. Such a statement strongly implies that most experienced and trained endocrinologists are incapable 
of utilizing recent (essentially current) technologx, a serious accusation that requires some support. 
Regardless, _ does not suggest that the petitioner devetoped' or. expanded on these 
-Page 13 
techniques. Specia~ or unusual knowledge. or tr~g, while perhaps attr~ctive~ective U.S. 
employer, does not mherently meet the natIOnal mterest threshold. Id. Fmally,~ asserts that 
the petitioner has been "widely cited on the internet and used as a refereIice by other authors." As 
discussed above, the record contains only a single citation and two discussions, both with disclaimers, 
on the intemet. _ assertion regarding the citation of the petitioner's work, therefore, is 
sufficiently inconsistent with the record as to diminish his overall credibility. 
uu. .. ",UU'U IS on 
presentations . •••••• discusses the importance of diabetes treatment, which is not contested, 
and asserts that there is a shortage of endocrinologists, which, as stated above, is under the jurisdiction 
of the Department of Labor. Id. concludes that the petitioner is a "prolific contributor 
to the field." does how two publications and four presentations constitute 
"prolific" contributions. _ characterizes the petitioner's research as "groundbreaking" 
"astonishing" and "landmark.;' Research thatrises to that level can be expected to have garnered some 
attention in the professional media. As discussed above, however, the reaction to the petitioner's 
research in the . media has been minimal. Unsupported hyperbole cannot establish 
eligibility. then reviews the petitioner's memberships; asserting that these 
memberships "are awarded to those physician-scientists who have attained an extraordinary level of 
expertise in endocrinology unparalleled' by their colleagues." We have discussed the petitioner's 
memberships above, which are all otfen to trained endocrinologists. Even counsel concedes on appeal 
that the memberships are open to nearly all trained endocrinologists. assertIons are 
so inconsistent with the evidence of record as to diminish his overall credibility. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that. testimony should'not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
. (citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for i~he petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). . \ 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'i. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the ~nal determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may, as we have done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's .eligibility. See id.at 795; see also Mdtter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 
(BIA 2008), (rioting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated; in accord with other 
information or is iIi any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
Page 14 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N ·Dec. 190 (Reg'l. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain hyperbolic attestations of unique abilities without 
specifically identifying innovations and providing specific examples of how those innovations have 
influenced the field. Merely repeating the language of legal standards does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof.3 The petitioner also failed to submit corroborating evidence in 
existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which could have bolstered the weight of the 
reference letters. ;, 
As discussed above, the only aspect of the petitioner's work that is national in scope is her research. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to ,receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any research, in order to be accepted for publication or funding, must offer 
new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who 
performs original research that adds to the general pool of knowledge inherently serves the national 
interest to an extent that justifies a waiver of the job offer requirement. 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it waS not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved alien employment certification will be in 
. the national interest of the United States. I 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. S~ction 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.c. § 1361. the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
This denial. is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a'· United States employer 
accompanied by an alien employment certification certified by the Department of Labor, appropriate 
supporting evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. i989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, US CIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions~ 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9,15 
tn.C. bist." 1990).